sustainability

Article

The Normative Dimension in Transdisciplinarity,Transition Management, and Transformation Sciences:New Roles of Science and Universities inSustainable Transitioning

Roland W. Scholz 1,2

1 Department of Knowledge Management and Communication, Faculty of Economics and Globalization,Danube University, 3500 Krems, Austria; roland.scholz@emeritus.ethz.ch; Tel.: +43-272-2893-2330

2 Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Academic Editor: Marc A. RosenReceived: 3 April 2017; Accepted: 27 May 2017; Published: 9 June 2017

Abstract: This paper discusses the role normative aspects play in different approaches ofscience–practice collaboration, in particular as action research, (Mode 2) Transdisciplinarity (Td),Transition Management (TM), and Transformative Science (TSc). We elaborate on the different rolesthat scientists in these processes play. They work as facilitators (or contribute to a facilitated Tdprocess), as activists (i.e., activist researchers) in TM projects, and as catalysts in TSc. Td processesdevelop socially robust solutions for sustainable transitioning and impacts on the science systemthrough mutual learning and by integrating epistemics (i.e., ways of knowing) from science andpractice and focusing on the empowerment of stakeholders. Science is viewed as a public goodaiming to serve all key stakeholders. Researchers involved in TM projects strive to influence ongoingtransition processes by actively engaging and participating in them, including lobbying for andempowering transformative changes toward sustainability based upon the researchers’ own analysesand world views. The TSc approach takes a catalyst perspective of the scientist’s role in inducingprocesses of strategic (societal) transition when including certain stakeholder groups. The paperfocuses on what roles normative aspects play in the different approaches and new societal demandsimposed on science and universities. Based on this, we conclude that a new order of universities,public knowledge institutions, and boundary institutions is forthcoming.

Keywords: transdisciplinarity; transition management; transformative science; normative issues inscience; societal demands; roles of scientists

1. Science as a Change Agent

Historically, the roles and functions of science in society have varied. For example, there “waslittle place for science in Rome and none in the barbarian kingdoms of western Europe” [1]. Scienceplayed a key role in the first Industrial Revolution, but after World War II, we were “witnessing thebeginnings of a world science, transforming old and creating new industries, permeating every aspectof life” [2]. Against this backdrop, Erich Jantsch introduced the concept of society as a user or client ofscience. He suggested that “the university will have to adopt a new purpose which may be recognizedas a means of society for continuous self-renewal” [3]. In his opinion, transdisciplinarity (Td) shouldbecome a purposive branch of science following a multi-goal and multi-level mode of practicing sciencedirected toward a “common goal” Jantsch suggested and even designed a transdisciplinary university.

The discussion about Td developed in the course of the environmental research that emerged in thecontext of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration of 1992 [4]. The environment became a dominant themefor change and planning. For example, in 1991, the Swiss Science Foundation launched a program

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991; doi:10.3390/su9060991 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 2 of 31

of ‘directed research’ with the added value gained by relating and integrating different ways ofknowing from practice and science. At the end of this program, the paper “Transdisciplinarity betweenfunding/promotion and being over-challenged” [5] sketched not only visions but also several barriersTd is encountering in the science system. The Zurich 2000 conference [6], with 300 practitioners and500 scientists participating in 20 mutual-learning sessions [7] and 12 dialogue sessions [8], presenteda definition of what is meant by (Mode 2) Td and focused, in particular, on the integration of epistemicsfrom science and practice for the goal of sustainable transitioning.

Science and higher education have become change agents for sustainable transitioning [9]. Thus,a social normative aspect has intervened. Given that the concept of sustainability has entered nationalconstitutions in many countries (e.g., in Switzerland in 1997), sustainability became a framing conceptand a regulating idea of human action [10]. Perhaps there is greater freedom in regard to sustainabilitythan there is regarding human rights, as the specific goals of sustainability have to be developed (andare ill-defined), whereas the meaning of torture seems to be more consensual [11].

With respect to these issues, the paper is structured in the following way. Section 2 providesdescriptions of three main approaches: transdisciplinarity (Td), Transition Management (TM), andTransformation Science (TSc). The discussion, Section 3, focuses on the difficulties these approachesface in order to properly cope with the normative dimensions in the current science system. Finally,the conclusion section refers to a differentiated inclusion of normative aspects and political agendas inpublic science institutions.

2. What Roles Might Science Play in Societal Transitions?

2.1. Methodology and Validation Strategy

This paper discussed Td, TM, and TSc as prominent approaches dedicated to sustainabletransitioning. The author of this paper knows Td very well as he has been a main promoter ofthe Zurich 2000 conception of Td since 1993. The descriptions and analyses of TM and TSc are basedon extensive literature searches and constructive in-depth joint discussions with key promoters ofTM (e.g., Derk Loorbach and Uwe Schneidewind). To avoid an unbalanced treatment of TM and TSc,a kind of iterated convergent validation was applied. A first complete draft of the paper, including theanalysis and classification of approaches, was sent to key promoters of TM (Derk Loorbach and UweSchneidewind, who included Karoline Augenstein) with a request to identify (i) “statements which arewrong”; (ii) which were “considered weird, unfair, too biased” [12]; and (iii) which were unnecessarilyharmful to present institutions. All three of these representatives responded with intense reviews,mostly constructive; corrected phrasings in the text; and participated in the construction of the labelsbefore the submission of the paper. Further, one of them acted as (a self-declared open) reviewer for inthe peer-review process, in addition to an anonymous reviewer.

2.2. Transdisciplinarity: Science as a Public Good

The Zurich 2000 Conception of Transdisciplinarity

Td processes include representatives of all stakeholder groups, and Td is based on fundamentalprinciples of basic Western democracy, such as a pluralistic perspective the principle of “accepting theotherness of others”. Within the Zurich 2000 conception of Td [6,7,13], science is considered a publicgood that serves all stakeholder groups operating within the framework of human and constitutionalrights. This compels science to play a special role as a societal institution that contributes to theknowledge necessary to maintain the viability and development of all core layers of society andhumanity. The special relationship between science and multi-stakeholder discourse is presentedin Figure 1. Three main streams should be involved in a Td process in the case of sustainabletransitioning of the (global) phosphorus cycle. We distinguish among (A) a targeted interdisciplinaryprocess in which the knowledge from social, natural, engineering, and humanity science is involved;

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 3 of 31

(B) a mitigated multi-stakeholder discourse for a case study on (global) sustainable phosphorusmanagement in the Global TraPs project [14] that includes representatives from all key stakeholdergroups; and (C) a (professionalized) facilitation relating these two streams under a co-leadership modelfrom science and practice [15–18]. We suggested that these processes should become the subject of(professional) facilitation.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 3 of 30

sustainable phosphorus management in the Global TraPs project [14] that includes representatives from all key stakeholder groups; and (C) a (professionalized) facilitation relating these two streams under a co-leadership model from science and practice [15–18]. We suggested that these processes should become the subject of (professional) facilitation.

Figure 1. Substreams of a Td process (Figure taken from [17]).

Td processes aspire to serve all stakeholder groups based on the democratic framing of society, and Td can be considered a democratic “policy-tool development for the implementation of sustainability” [19]. Td projects are—ideally—co-governed by a democratically legitimized decision maker (e.g., a lord mayor) and scientists on an equal footing, and they include the knowledge and values of all concerned (see Figure 2). The selection of the representatives of key stakeholder groups is based on a comprehensive system model that allows participants in the process to deal with critical issues that have been included in a guiding question [15,20–22]. The guiding question and the system model are identified in a process that emerges from the initial views of the science and practice leaders (see Section 2, Figure 2), and they are developed in a sequential process that includes representatives of all relevant groups that may affect, are affected by, or are interested in critical system changes related to the guiding question.

From their beginnings, the ETH case studies were dealing with the sustainable transition of urban and rural systems [21,23]. Although in addition, the development of sustainable strategies by the Swiss Railways Company [24] and policy strategies, e.g., for nuclear waste management, have been subjects of Td processes, such as biogeochemical cycle management in the case of phosphorus [14].

Marks and Scholz [25] stressed the necessity of applying methods of knowledge integration, and they suggested the formation of Td colleges in which science and practice work together to develop strategic knowledge about sustainable transitions in a protected discourse arena. In fact, a large number of methods for representing, evaluating, and transforming real-world cases were adapted and applied in many Td processes [20,22,26,27].

Figure 1. Substreams of a Td process (Figure taken from [17]).

Td processes aspire to serve all stakeholder groups based on the democratic framing ofsociety, and Td can be considered a democratic “policy-tool development for the implementation ofsustainability” [19]. Td projects are—ideally—co-governed by a democratically legitimized decisionmaker (e.g., a lord mayor) and scientists on an equal footing, and they include the knowledge andvalues of all concerned (see Figure 2). The selection of the representatives of key stakeholder groups isbased on a comprehensive system model that allows participants in the process to deal with criticalissues that have been included in a guiding question [15,20–22]. The guiding question and the systemmodel are identified in a process that emerges from the initial views of the science and practice leaders(see Section 2, Figure 2), and they are developed in a sequential process that includes representatives ofall relevant groups that may affect, are affected by, or are interested in critical system changes relatedto the guiding question.

From their beginnings, the ETH case studies were dealing with the sustainable transition of urbanand rural systems [21,23]. Although in addition, the development of sustainable strategies by theSwiss Railways Company [24] and policy strategies, e.g., for nuclear waste management, have beensubjects of Td processes, such as biogeochemical cycle management in the case of phosphorus [14].

Marks and Scholz [25] stressed the necessity of applying methods of knowledge integration, andthey suggested the formation of Td colleges in which science and practice work together to developstrategic knowledge about sustainable transitions in a protected discourse arena. In fact, a largenumber of methods for representing, evaluating, and transforming real-world cases were adapted andapplied in many Td processes [20,22,26,27].

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 4 of 31Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 4 of 30

Figure 2. Science, legitimized decision makers, and the public at large (civil society, including different stakeholders) follow different objectives (see right end of the time scale) involved in a transdisciplinary process (figure modified from [28]).

From their earliest beginnings, Td processes [22] have been dedicated to sustainable transitioning. For understanding scientists’ conceptions of sustainability and to better distinguish between the normative and societal dimensions, Laws et al. [29] investigated the notion of 21 projects that were run jointly at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston), ETH (Zurich and Lausanne), the University of Tokyo, and Chalmers University of Technology (Gothenburg). This investigation led to the notion that sustainable development is a proactive, ongoing inquiry (i.e., multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary process; see Figure 1) on system-limit management (i.e., on preventing hard landings and collapses of valuable systems) in the framework of inter-and intragenerational justice (see Figure 3). Naturally, the social norms and values of the stakeholders also affect what the inquiry—i.e., the process of sustainable transitioning—looks like. We may consider this definition a systemic variant of the Brundtland definition [30], which distinguished between a facilitation process, a science-based resilience analysis and assessment, and a normative, justice-based dimension.

Figure 3. Definition of sustainability (based on [29]).

Figure 2. Science, legitimized decision makers, and the public at large (civil society, including differentstakeholders) follow different objectives (see right end of the time scale) involved in a transdisciplinaryprocess (figure modified from [28]).

From their earliest beginnings, Td processes [22] have been dedicated to sustainable transitioning.For understanding scientists’ conceptions of sustainability and to better distinguish between thenormative and societal dimensions, Laws et al. [29] investigated the notion of 21 projects thatwere run jointly at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston), ETH (Zurich and Lausanne),the University of Tokyo, and Chalmers University of Technology (Gothenburg). This investigationled to the notion that sustainable development is a proactive, ongoing inquiry (i.e., multi-stakeholderand interdisciplinary process; see Figure 1) on system-limit management (i.e., on preventing hardlandings and collapses of valuable systems) in the framework of inter-and intragenerational justice (seeFigure 3). Naturally, the social norms and values of the stakeholders also affect what the inquiry—i.e.,the process of sustainable transitioning—looks like. We may consider this definition a systemic variantof the Brundtland definition [30], which distinguished between a facilitation process, a science-basedresilience analysis and assessment, and a normative, justice-based dimension.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 4 of 30

Figure 2. Science, legitimized decision makers, and the public at large (civil society, including different stakeholders) follow different objectives (see right end of the time scale) involved in a transdisciplinary process (figure modified from [28]).

From their earliest beginnings, Td processes [22] have been dedicated to sustainable transitioning. For understanding scientists’ conceptions of sustainability and to better distinguish between the normative and societal dimensions, Laws et al. [29] investigated the notion of 21 projects that were run jointly at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston), ETH (Zurich and Lausanne), the University of Tokyo, and Chalmers University of Technology (Gothenburg). This investigation led to the notion that sustainable development is a proactive, ongoing inquiry (i.e., multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary process; see Figure 1) on system-limit management (i.e., on preventing hard landings and collapses of valuable systems) in the framework of inter-and intragenerational justice (see Figure 3). Naturally, the social norms and values of the stakeholders also affect what the inquiry—i.e., the process of sustainable transitioning—looks like. We may consider this definition a systemic variant of the Brundtland definition [30], which distinguished between a facilitation process, a science-based resilience analysis and assessment, and a normative, justice-based dimension.

Figure 3. Definition of sustainability (based on [29]).

Figure 3. Definition of sustainability (based on [29]).

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 5 of 31

2.3. Experimental Action Research as a Predecessor of Td

Although this was actually noticed late, the Zurich 2000 conception of Td has strong roots in KurtLewin’s experimental action research [31,32]. Lewin has long been known as the founder of socialpsychology [32,33]. Here, the controlled study of changes in environmental settings and impacts such asa change of leadership style or decision rules on action and behavior are key issues, and the systematicvariation of environmental settings by analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based designs is the core method.A recent study applied this technique to quantitatively evaluate the success of Td processes [34]. Lewinapplied ANOVA to explore and validate the changes in programs and societal settings (e.g., teachingstrategies) that could help solve problems faced by minorities (e.g., how to actively include more blackstudents). The area development negotiation (ADN) method genuinely refers to Lewin’s ideas. Here,different stakeholder groups are included in designing scenarios for creating future urban settings.The consent and dissent of different stakeholder groups with respect to different aspects (criteria)are assessed by an ANOVA-design-based experimental study (which is included in a Td process).This, then, may become the subject of a mediated negotiation process [35] in order to balance humanneeds and interests. The ADN method, which is a combination of scenario formation, multi-criteriadecision-making, and negotiation [23], became a standard method of Td processes [20].

However, most remarkably, Lewin’s cooperation with firms, as well as with organizationsactive in community work, education, and minority problems within and beyond Boston [35], wasinstitutionalized as the Center for Group Dynamics at MIT, where students could attain a Doctorateof Philosophy in Group Psychology. This is similar to the case at ETH, where a Td Laboratory [36]developed from a Case Study Laboratory. Unfortunately, action research was discontinued at MITafter Kurt Lewin died early in 1947. However, Lewin’s ideas continued to develop in the US asdiffering variants of action research and particularly in participatory action research [37,38] andcommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) [39,40], which dealt with questions of health andeducation (several variants of action research are presented and discussed below).

Td and action research differ in a couple of respects. As indicated by its label, action researchfocuses on direct action, and, in many cases, the researcher is intrinsically motivated and takes on theroles and values of a specific stakeholder group. The goals of transdisciplinarity, however, are as follows:

a) capacity building between science and practice by mutual learning and the capacity building ofall stakeholder groups;

b) consensus building (particularly in the problem-definition phase) among scientists and practitioners;c) finding strategies of mitigation among winners and losers of transitions; andd) the legitimization of certain actions by politicians who may refer to a balanced process of finding

socially robust orientations.

Thus, Td goes beyond mere problem solving and “solutionism” [41], yet it also aims for thegoal that scientific disciplines and the science system itself will benefit from the theory–practicecollaboration. The Global TraPs project may be taken as example. Researchers, together with keypractitioners (from the mining industry, geological surveys, and fertilizer producers), developed adifferentiated view regarding the scarcity of the finite resource phosphorus [42–44], which correctedunreasoned concerns about short-term scarcity of this resource. Without the data and knowledge frompractice, this scientific progress would not have been made.

We should note that Td is an approach developed mostly in German-speaking countries and inSweden but has become acknowledged at high-level universities worldwide [45–49]. It becamea subject of strategic planning for ETH [50] and a method of research in strategic resourcesmanagement [51].

2.4. From Science to Policy: Transition Management

The TM approach developed at the end of the 1990s in the Netherlands in the context ofa policy–science debate about long-term environmental policies based on the work of Jan Rotmans

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 6 of 31

on integrated environmental assessment and modeling on transition processes in environmentalsystems [52–54]. This approach to a large-scale, long-term perspective was influenced by, amongother things, innovation theory and adaptive complex-system thinking [55,56]. The models includedpolitical actors and decision makers, and the scientific results were addressed to them. The idea tocontribute to “coherence and consistency in public policy” led to the conception of TM [57].

Starting from a long-term, multi-domain, multi-actor perspective, TM attempts to influence thespeed and direction of transitions by creating arenas for actors who want to contribute to sustainabilitytransitions. This may be considered a proactive governance approach that develops shared strategies,visions, and actions, yet is done, however, by a “selective participation when leaving the dominantinterests out” [58] of a subset of actors. While grassroots processes and participation have alsobeen identified as meaningful strategies, it sometimes referred to policy consultancy and the DutchTriple Helix conception [59], in which science interacts with leading representatives in politics andindustry in a flexible manner. Although there are not yet methodological tools available such asthose for Td [20,27,60], recent work has provided insight into how the interaction between scientistsand practitioners is conceived [61]. The strategy involves, rather, “influencing transitions” [62],by supporting processes of framing, visioning, strategizing, and experimenting in society. In additionto this, TM explicitly acknowledges the inevitable impact researchers have as part of transition contextsand processes requiring a reflexive attitude. By actually becoming one of the actors in a transformation,the aim is to achieve a real-world impact as well as to develop in-depth insights into actor motivations,governance processes, and the impact of interventions [58,63]. A rationale for this is that researchershave to be in the place where transitions happen and produce insights into the manageability ofsustainable transitions [56].

From a systems perspective, the focus is on the interaction of social and technologicalsystems. For this type of coupled system, three layers are identified when referring to ecology:a framing-landscape level, a regime level, and a micro level of niches. Niches are places in whichnew cultures, structures, practices, and technologies develop as alternatives to the mainstream. Theyare embedded in rather stable regimes of actor networks, rules, and technological infrastructure.The top level, landscape consists of large-scale external trends and changes in society that areconsidered robust for opposing strategies of single-actor groups [64]. Regimes are the dominantconfigurations of institutions, implicit rules, technologies, discourses, and behavioral rules. Transitionsresult from the interplay between landscape pressures, internal regime tensions, and increasing nichecompetition. Figure 4 presents a governance framework that emerged from these perspective fourtypes of governance processes of TM [65]. This multi-level model has been widely received and workssuccessfully as a cultural tool in many domains, including adaptation to climate change through thetransitioning of energy systems. The “heart of the Dutch transition approach is transition platformsconsisting of people from business, academia government, and civil society [providing] proposals fortransition paths to the Dutch government and public” [66].

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 6 of 30

integrated environmental assessment and modeling on transition processes in environmental systems [52–54]. This approach to a large-scale, long-term perspective was influenced by, among other things, innovation theory and adaptive complex-system thinking [55,56]. The models included political actors and decision makers, and the scientific results were addressed to them. The idea to contribute to “coherence and consistency in public policy” led to the conception of TM [57].

Starting from a long-term, multi-domain, multi-actor perspective, TM attempts to influence the speed and direction of transitions by creating arenas for actors who want to contribute to sustainability transitions. This may be considered a proactive governance approach that develops shared strategies, visions, and actions, yet is done, however, by a “selective participation when leaving the dominant interests out” [58] of a subset of actors. While grassroots processes and participation have also been identified as meaningful strategies, it sometimes referred to policy consultancy and the Dutch Triple Helix conception [59], in which science interacts with leading representatives in politics and industry in a flexible manner. Although there are not yet methodological tools available such as those for Td [20,27,60], recent work has provided insight into how the interaction between scientists and practitioners is conceived [61]. The strategy involves, rather, “influencing transitions” [62], by supporting processes of framing, visioning, strategizing, and experimenting in society. In addition to this, TM explicitly acknowledges the inevitable impact researchers have as part of transition contexts and processes requiring a reflexive attitude. By actually becoming one of the actors in a transformation, the aim is to achieve a real-world impact as well as to develop in-depth insights into actor motivations, governance processes, and the impact of interventions [58,63]. A rationale for this is that researchers have to be in the place where transitions happen and produce insights into the manageability of sustainable transitions [56].

From a systems perspective, the focus is on the interaction of social and technological systems. For this type of coupled system, three layers are identified when referring to ecology: a framing-landscape level, a regime level, and a micro level of niches. Niches are places in which new cultures, structures, practices, and technologies develop as alternatives to the mainstream. They are embedded in rather stable regimes of actor networks, rules, and technological infrastructure. The top level, landscape consists of large-scale external trends and changes in society that are considered robust for opposing strategies of single-actor groups [64]. Regimes are the dominant configurations of institutions, implicit rules, technologies, discourses, and behavioral rules. Transitions result from the interplay between landscape pressures, internal regime tensions, and increasing niche competition. Figure 4 presents a governance framework that emerged from these perspective four types of governance processes of TM [65]. This multi-level model has been widely received and works successfully as a cultural tool in many domains, including adaptation to climate change through the transitioning of energy systems. The “heart of the Dutch transition approach is transition platforms consisting of people from business, academia government, and civil society [providing] proposals for transition paths to the Dutch government and public” [66].

Figure 4. The transition cycle of the TM approach [65]. Figure 4. The transition cycle of the TM approach [65].

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 7 of 31

Some years ago, the Rotterdam TM approach took a stronger activist approach based on theanalysis that some societal regimes need disruptive transformations. The rest of this subsectionrefers to Loorbach’s paper [67], wherein a conception of science is developed that departs fromdisciplinary structures (p. 79) when taking a “postnormal science and action orientation” (p. 68)that “is normative” (p. 68) and aims “to influence“ transformative changes while studying them”(p. 68). The new conception, which is rooted in qualitative analysis rather than based on integratedmodeling, puts the normative component and the third mission of science (to contribute to societalproblem-solving) on top and switches from an evolutionary [57] to a revolutionary view of long-termtransitions. Loorbach states that reflexive modernization (p. 23) has come to an end, and even“Sustainable Development itself has become part of the problem”, as the foundations of modernity“are systematically unsustainable” (p. 32).

TM becomes “activist research” (p. 67). This requires that more funding be allocated according“to the ability to show societal value rather than on the ability to satisfy reviewers” (p. 72) and notonly to contribute to consistent and coherent knowledge or other criteria of normal sciences. Loorbachintroduced the idea of governance panarchy, referring to Hollings’s theory of succession biology [68],in which (over-)mature systems collapse, and to anarchist political theory [58]. In this fundamentaltransition, the idea of science as a public good, which is characteristic of the Zurich 2000 conception(see above), is abandoned, as Loorbach intends to work selectively “with proactive and transformativeactors within government, business, science, and civil society” (p. 76). To do this, analogous to theidea of TSc colleges, Loorbach and his colleagues developed a Transition Academy (p. 79).

Historically, the present shift to a critical activist worldview, which considers sustainabledevelopment as a patchwork repair that may promote the lock-in of the (Dutch) regime, is a differentstarting point from the formation of TSc 20 years earlier at the climax of environmental crises andcatastrophes such as Chernobyl or Seveso. Today, there is also increasing insecurity regarding globalfinancial systems and large-scale migration. There is a presumption that we are nearing the end ofthe modern industrial, fossil-energy-based age, the modernization of the Western welfare society(which cannot be extended to a global level), the nation-state ordered world system, and—if we lookat science—the end of the segregated mono-disciplinary order of universities.

2.5. Promoting the Great Transition: TSc

The question about the collapse of global civilization has been posed by biologists [69–71] whenpointing to the vulnerability of ecosystems and their sensitivity to human actions. It is remarkablethat the conventions of Rio [72] targeted the prevention of “dangerous” human interference withthe climate system and thus can be viewed as global, environmental precautionary planning [73].Although the major concerns and consensus were focused on climate change, desertification, andbiodiversity, the three-pillar concept of sustainability introduced the social and economic dimensionsof future change, development, and scenarios linked this to the concept of what has been called theGreat Transition, a term coined by the economist Kenneth Boulding [74] upon noticing the fundamentalchanges in human resource use. The term was used by the Stockholm Tellus Institute in order to designglobal scenarios to “examine worlds that transcend reform to embrace new values and institutions inpursuit of a just, fulfilling, and sustainable civilization [75]”. The aims of the Great Transition wentfar beyond resilient ecosystems; they involved a strong Western civilization perspective and targeted“socially equitable, culturally enriched, and ecologically resilient planetary civilization [as a] normativefoundation [75].

A very similar approach emerged from a business–science perspective of sustainable managementdeveloped at the University of St. Gallen’s business school, in the course of extending the naturalcapital-based economic sustainability approach [76,77] by shifting to a specific form of weak economicsustainability characterized by actor–network-based innovations and institutional changes [78]. Whenreferring to ideas about new institutional economics [79,80], one core idea is that sustainability callsfor a transformation of the explicit and implicit rules and procedures on a societal level. Institutions

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 8 of 31

are viewed as enablers of societal change [81]. This view has been considered a third componentsupplementing the stakeholder value and normative idea-shaped approaches (which play a prominentrule in Td; see Figure 2).

The idea of (sustainable) “transformation as a democratic search process” became the core messageof the 2011 flagship report, “World in Transition”, by the German Advisory Council on Global Change,an independent scientific advisory body launched and financed by the German government [82]. TheWBGU focuses on critical environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity;soil and freshwater conservation; and the global food supply as well as population growth, and—stillwith an optimistic view–the rise of democracy [83] and thus closely resembles the Great Transition.The most salient points in the context of this paper are as follows:

(i) The idea of a “social contract for the transformation to a sustainable society” that launches“responsibility towards future generations with a culture of democratic participation” [84];

(i) The suggestion for “a new scientific discipline—‘transformation research’—that specificallyaddresses transformation processes” and should be based on “systemic interdisciplinarity” and“involving stakeholders on a transdisciplinarity basis,” in particular in “identifying researchissues and objectives” [85].

The idea of a social contract for sustainable transitioning refers to a modern philosophical,Enlightenment-based idea and was explicitly suggested in reference to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679),John Locke (1632–1704), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) andthe vision of a “proactive state” as a key actor [84]. The separation of science and citizens’ rights arewell addressed in the statement: “The task of the scientific community is therefore to identify policyoptions; it is a matter for the democratically elected decision-makers to decide on the appropriatecourse of action” [84]. Thus, “research for transformation” should develop, investigate, and suggest“political strategies” [85], e.g., through transdisciplinary processes.

The Wuppertal Institute and its President Uwe Schneidewind [86,87], who is also a professor ata public university, took a leading role in the development of transition science and in the identificationof key ideas [88]. The Wuppertal Institute is institutionally a limited liability company and non-profitenterprise (gGmbH) and thus a type of non-governmental institute. However, it was launched in1992 by the social-democratic government of North Rhine–Westphalia. It received considerable basic(long-term) funding from the state as an Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy in the early1990s, when both local air pollution and climate change related to fossil energy were issues. It is thus,by its nature, an interfacial process institute between government and various stakeholder groups.However, the governmental funding has been viewed with resentment by NGO-like eco-institutes [89]that criticize consultancy-shaped projects with governmental sourcing and NGO-like aspirationsof transitioning to a new society (similar to the TM approach and in contrast to Td’s idea of thepublic good).

Schneidewind and colleagues’ current intention to extend and transform the science system andto build a Mode 3 research model that supplements the societal-problem-driven Mode 2 research.What Mode 3 science really means is fuzzily formulated but relates—as similarly expressed in theTM approach—to “societal transformation challenges”, “by actively including civil society actorsas an external corrective on the ‘blind spots’ in the science system” [90]. The core method ofTransition Science is the “Real Experiment” [91] in settings such as “Real-World Laboratories” (RWLs).In particular, cities are seen as places of transformation. The practice of RWLs has, thus far, notdeveloped to much extent. RWLs are conceived as “a normatively framed approach within spatialand content-related boundaries, using Td methods of knowledge integration and engaging in cyclicalreal-world interventions in order to contribute to local action for sustainable development and theempowerment of change agents” [92]. There are four RWL labs in Wuppertal and others elsewherein Germany.

TS does not look for idealized, artificial settings that isolate ambivalent impacts in order toapproach an unobtrusive observation for gaining insights in (multi-)causal mechanisms and systems.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 9 of 31

A “real-world experiment” is seen as a hybrid approach, including components of field observationand living experimentation for ecological and technological implementation [88]. We may consider thisapproach as a vision and perhaps as another replication of the debate that the common method of socialscience experimentation—manipulating one aspect while leaving all other aspects unchanged—isunrealistic [93] and calls for adapting the setting of observation [94]. However, the validation of dataseems to pose many fundamental questions. The major field of application is urban development andthe search for social innovation [95]. In 2015, the state of Baden-Württemberg launched seven labsranging from national parks via energy transitioning, mobility, and space-sharing to the sustainabletransitioning of traditional industries such as the textile industry with a clear commitment that “sciencemay find solutions for [the] future only when collaborating with society” [96].

The methods and methodology of real-world experiments are under construction. The promotersof transformative science (TS) refer to the methods applied in Td processes [20,21,60] and to the visionof disciplined interdisciplinarity in Td discourses [97]. However, there are also other questions, such asin what way normative lobbying for new sustainable patterns of life or genuine democratic discoursesthat include all main stakeholders should be launched or how the inputs of science and practice shouldbe used; these questions have yet to be answered sufficiently by the TSc approach.

2.6. Different Roles of Scientists in the Three Approaches: Facilitator, Catalyst, or Activist (Researcher)

If we highlight those roles that science may play, we can distinguish between two extremepositions. The first is science as a self-efficient endeavor in which scientists write papers that are thenreviewed and read by other scientists. This narrow view was promoted by the theme “from professorsto knowledge workers” [98]. It appears that, in some domains, craftsmanship-like quantitative recordshave replaced the quality of ideas generated by sage scholars. A second role is linked to the servicefunction of science and to what we call a “luggage carrier”. Science became functionalized by politicsor industry, playing the role of a helpmate that performs contract-based research and development, andfollows instructions. As Trischler and vom Bruch [99] elaborated, many of the activities of FraunhoferGesellschaft follow this model, which resembles the principal agent model. Industry is the principal,and (public) science institutions represent the agent. We also think that some of the (“close to citizen”)projects of the Dutch programs Climate Changes Spatial Planning Programme [100] and Knowledge forPlanning [101] fall into this category: The task “to support the development” may be seen as scientistsserving as helpmates to manage a national political problem, i.e., the “spatially explicit adaptationand mitigation strategies that anticipate climate change“ [100]. To avoid becoming dependent onthird-hand money and/or losing the independence of science, contract-based research has to beabandoned in Td processes. Instead, Td processes should receive sponsoring (which can be linked todeclarations regarding the processes for which such monies may be spent). Yet practitioners must begiven full transparency about data and papers before publication in order to avoid being unreasonablyor unnecessarily harmed. The latter is usually guaranteed by co-leadership (see above).

Td, TM, and TSc aspire to introduce new ways of doing and utilizing science for societal learningand transitioning. The concepts overlap, but they differ in the conception of the role that science andscientists should play in the transition. Doubtlessly, all approaches see science as a change agent andscientists as reflective and reflexive [63].

Td launches and facilitates mutual learning between science and society when epistemics (waysof knowing) and values (e.g., about the subjects of inquiry) in the processes of joint problem definition,problem representation, and problem transformation develop socially robust orientations. Sciencefunctions as a public good and knowledge broker, which should help all stakeholders to better copewith ongoing transitions in a sustainable manner.

TM supports and mobilizes proactively human actors (people, cities, sectors, and organizations)to take action in fundamental changes toward a sustainable future. Scientists are conceived of asa “socially committed, open-minded, curious and—at times—provocative bunch”; they are “critical ofthe status quo, contribute to fundamental change, and generate sustainable futures” [102]. TM has

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 10 of 31

been closer to politics governmental actors, see [56] than Td, which focuses more on the whole rangeof policy makers (stakeholders).

TSc “takes an active role in initiating and catalyzing change processes (see Table 1). The aim isto increase[d] societal capacity for reflexivity with regard to fundamental change processes.” Suchas in TSc, science is conceived as an “an enabler of collective social learning processes” [103] quotestaken from (pp. 2–10). The concept of ‘catalyst’ falls between the reflexive facilitator and the activist;it conceives of scientists as initiators of change and process facilitators [63].

Table 1. Societal Roles of Science. (This categorization has been developed jointly with Uwe Schneidewind.)

Narrow Understandings of the Science–Society Relationship

No. Key Features of Science Role of Science Short Label of Scientist

(1)Science as self sufficient endeavor(“administrative knowledge processing,”German: Sachbearbeiter)

Specialized disciplinary work Knowledge workers

(2) Science as a lobbyist toolContract-based research; socialwork on higher agglomeratedsocial systems

Luggage carrier(German: Kofferträger)

Enlightened Understandings of the Science–Society Relationship

(3) Transition Management: Science as anagent of sustainable transitioning Scientists as activists Activist

(4)Transition Science: Science as a specificform of strategic planning (bytransdisciplinarity methods)

Scientists as catalysts Catalyst

(5)Transdisciplinarity: Science as public goodin democratically shaped societies(transdisciplinarity and reflexivity)

Scientists as facilitators (ofefficient knowledge useand reflection)

Reflective facilitators

3. Ambiguities of the Use of Normative Ideas in Science

In order to demonstrate the concerns of disciplinary science with ways that the normativedimension is dealt with in the presented approaches, we sketch a fierce critique of TSc by thepresident of the German Science Foundation (DFG). In a paper entitled “On the Politics ofTransformative Science” [41], Peter Strohschneider criticizes the “normative anchoring” of scientificactivity, solutionism (i.e., the issue that science is functionalized as a problem solver), the Td approachthat gives some control of a scientific process to non-academic agents, and, related to this, the lossof differentiation and the endangerment of “social contamination” of scientific reasoning and thedestruction of the special role of universities in science and what he called “fictitious facticity” (inGerman, Faktengewalt, i.e., the misleading legitimization of policy makers). The latter refers to societyexpecting push-button solutions, whereas science generates theoretical knowledge that may be appliedto many fields.

3.1. Top Academic Institutions’ Concerns about Transdisciplinarity and Transition Science

The three presented approaches—Td, TM, and TSc—have come under severe criticism bytraditional science. The author of this paper clearly recalls that, around the turn of the millennium, thepresident of ETH Zurich launched a critical inquiry of the author’s work on TSc, questioning whetherETH Zurich should allow this type of work that was conducted on an unusually broad range of topics.The president (initially) had the idea or image that TSc would create something like an “indigenousmathematics” [104], i.e., a simplified folk science for coping with complexity. After a comprehensiveand exhaustive evaluation, this opinion was, fortunately, altered, and TSc became an accepted mode ofdoing and utilizing science in the ETH domain [105].

The TSc approach, which considers itself “a catalyst for a learning society on the way to sustainabledevelopment” [106], was criticized by a remarkable position paper entitled “On the Politics of

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 11 of 31

Transformative Science” [41] written by the president of the German Science Foundation, the philologistPeter Strohschneider, with the heading “On the politics of transformative science” [41]. This papercomprises thoughtful arguments that are worthy of reflection, at least if the institutional structures ofthe research related to sustainable transitioning are of interest. We first briefly present the arguments;we then show how each one applies in a different way to the three approaches presented and whatmisunderstandings may be involved in Strohschneider’s view.

The starting point of Strohschneider’s arguments is the reference to Transition Science anda review of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, which was launched in1992 by the ministries of the environment and of research and technology) for sustainability asa global societal contract. WBGU considers the current fossil-energy-based, world-economic systema “normative untenable (unsustainable; in German, unhaltbar) state” [84] The core issue is the norm ofintergenerational justice (see Figure 2), which urges a great transformation. Strohschneider [41] focuseson a statement by the [85] claiming that, besides the “self-organising civil society,” the “scientific expertcommunity should become a new, important actor” as well. Strohschneider is concerned that thenew reciprocal societal contact (i) urges the science system to reorganize itself to align with the issues,subjects, and contents of the societal transformation; and (ii) that societal reputation and the fundingof science will focus on this aspect of science.

In some detail, Strohschneider criticizes the following four features of TSc:

• Solutionism: Science becomes directed by an oversimplified problem-and-solution schemethat—among other things—does not sufficiently differentiate the epistemics involved also inmedicine and engineering science and how they are used in practice.

• Transdisciplinarity: Strohschneider acknowledges that disciplines create an inner environment(in which, to be specific, scientists write papers that are read and evaluated by other scientists).In contrast, he sees that transdisciplinarity “makes society become an integral part of knowledgeproduction” [88]. Thus, an external reference is seen as becoming the director of scientific processesinstead of inner-science rules and processes.

• Faktengewalt: Faktengewalt is interpreted as a mechanism by which data (facts) and knowledgeare given force and supremacy (see Hoffmann). Strohschneider stresses the “principle ofmethodological skepticism (in German, Zweifel) that differentiates scientific from non-scientificknowledge [41]. He refers to the danger that judgments on societal usefulness or utilitarianarguments are dominating science, and he refers explicitly to the concept of socially robustknowledge [107]. The critical point for the science system is the feedback of the normativesustainability reference to scientific evaluation. Sustainability, which includes normativemoral, societal, and (majority-oriented) political components, is overruling the search forscientific validation.

• De-differentiation: The most essential critique refers to the de-differentiation of science.Strohschneider notes that TSc abandons a distinction between science and non-science. Sciencebecomes one voice among others, and it would become obliged to serve sustainability. The chargefor a science statement switches “from systemic responsibility to individual (legal) liability”(p. 183). Strohschneider refers to the 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake, the aftermath of which was thatscientists, charged with manslaughter, received six-year jail sentences in 2012 because—althoughgiven uncertain and ambiguous data—they had not warned the public [108]. This argument,which is brought to the context of the democratizing of expertise and science as well as tofeatures such as “co-design” and “co-production,” may be taken as an example of a societalmisunderstanding of what a discipline (i.e., geologists) knows about the emergence of a singlereal-world event (here an earthquake) and what is not known.

Strohschneider’s work has been discussed in various papers [109–111]. We briefly clarify severalissues with respect to solutionism (Section 3.2), Faktengewalt (Section 3.4), and de-differentiation

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 12 of 31

(Section 3.3). Then, in Section 4, we deal in some depth with social involvement and the “socialcontamination of science”, Strohschneider’s main argument with respect to transdisciplinarity.

3.2. Orientation on Sustainable Actions Instead of Solutions

For instance, this author [97] shifted the Nowotny et al. [112] concept of “socially robust solutions”to “socially robust orientations” ([97]; see Box 1). This was done most often when running a Td processwith the Swedish and Swiss nuclear power industry and its stakeholders [113] that called for a sensitivedefinition of shared and differentiated responsibility and accountability. Scholz distinguishes threedifferent roles participants may play in a Td discourse (see Figure 2), i.e., legitimized decision makers,scientists, or concerned citizens (stakeholders). The term orientation also stresses that mutual learningbetween science and practice is a basic principle [114]. As presented in Figure 1, Td processes establisha temporary collaboration between science and practice. “Socially robust orientations” are related toreal-world decisions, but they are “if–then” types of relationships on actions and impacts that decisionmakers may learn from and utilize. “If you want to have X, then do not do Y because”. The phrasesocially robust orientation acknowledges the specific constraints (including democratic compromise)under which real-world decisions are made. Scientists are not democratically legitimized decisionmakers as are lord mayors or owners of real estate or companies. However, they may help decisionmakers to improve their decisions as well as the outcomes of these decisions. Actionist approachessuch as TM tend to be more direct and also work with recommendations [56].

There are views among transition researchers that call for a direct involvement of scientistsin direct action on complex (economic, social, etc.) decisions. Wiek [115], for instance, statesthat “joint decision-making” among scientists and strategic agents that goes beyond the contextualdecision-making process is the ultimate goal, i.e., the highest level. He also criticizes the “normativeasymmetry” between science and policy or society and thinks about replacing the ”idea of purescience by the idea of concerned science that is not only legitimized but also obliged to contribute tothe generation of normative and action-guiding knowledge” [115]. This is definitely a solutionist’sperspective, in contrast to the Zurich 2000 definition of Td, which in this point meets the concerns ofStrohschneider expressed in his view on Td.

3.3. Differentiation for Efficient Co-Creation

Td of the Zurich 2000 approach takes a clear differentiationist approach with respect to thedisciplinary orientation. In particular, scientific disciplines are judged to function as scientificclearinghouses of knowledge, i.e., as a forum in which theoretically incoherent and logically incohesiveknowledge providing incorrect or inadequate knowledge is identified and abandoned. The history ofscience [116] is full of such examples, including incorrect theories about worms causing cancer, whicheven received the Nobel Prize [117], or the Italian School of Algebraic Geometry, which collapsed aftera generation of “brilliant speculation” [118] because of insufficiently acknowledging strong standardsof mathematical proof. This is also shared by Schneidewind and colleagues [119], who acknowledgedthe “rigid quality criteria” of academic disciplines. Box 1 below clearly presents a position that hasbeen shared unambiguously in the Td case studies co-led by the author. Here, Td not only fullysupports the inner-science autonomy but also shows how science and societal perspectives, interests,and constraints may well be related. However, as also stressed by Schneidewind, science and practicehave different roles. The questions “What may be wrong with this statement under what constraints(e.g., prerequisites, situations, etc.)?” and “By what means may I validate this statement and show thatit has to be improved?” are keys to the history of science. This is different from real-world decisionswhere economic success, feasibility, public acceptance, etc. are key criteria.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 13 of 31

Box 1. Definition of Socially Robust Orientation A ‘Socially Robust Orientation’ [96].

No. Propertyi Meets science state of the art scientific knowledgeii Has the potential to attract consensus, and thus must be understandable by all stakeholder groups

iii Acknowledges the uncertainties and incompleteness inherent in any type of knowledge about processes ofthe universe

ivGenerates processes of knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g., scientific and experientialknowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, andengineering sciences)

v Considers the constraints given by the context both of generating and utilizing knowledge.

3.4. The Two-Way Faktengewalt between Science and Experiential Knowledge

Solid scientific findings should influence planning processes, political decisions, and everydaydecisions. This holds true even if the state-of-the-art knowledge is false. The example of the fallacioushypothesis that worms may cause stomach cancer, which was awarded the Nobel Price, can betaken as an example [120]. In general, scientific knowledge is complementary to experience andintuitive reasoning. However, scientific knowledge differs from alchemy because scientific methodsgo beyond myths, magic, and other supernatural aspects of reasoning; yet intuition and experienceare superior to analytical knowledge in many situations, in particular, if we are facing problems thatare complex, multi-layered, etc. [28,116,121,122]. The latter holds true especially if different rationales,e.g., from natural and social systems, interact. We should mention that this topic has been discussedin high-ranking journals with strong support from practitioners, in particular, CEOs from geologicalsurvey and mining companies.

We should mention here that the Faktengewalt from practice corrected faulty scientific applicationsof the Hubbert curve rationale in regard to phosphorus. Here, several scientists proclaimed thatsupply-based peak phosphorus would be reached in 2030 be [123]. This statement resulted instrong objections by practical experts in mining companies, mineral surveys, etc., as they knewthe approximate amounts of phosphate rock that might become economically produced (e.g., withsome price increase or more-efficient mining technologies) in the near and mid-term future. Therehas been a misapplication of a mathematical model when identifying future ultimate retrievablephosphorus resources (which is the total amount of phosphorus that will be mined in the future) withreserves (which are the known, currently economically mineable phosphate rocks that have beenassessed and communicated by mining companies). This failure could be corrected by the Td GlobalTraPs project and its follow-up activities [43,124,125] and shows how the Faktengewalt of experientialknowledge can affect science.

4. The Normative Dimensions of Science and Society

Science is a normative venture in many respects, and as such, it refers to (authoritative)oughtness [126] of binding rules, laws, and standards of conduct that constrain actors. For doing this,we distinguish (a) between a societal perspective. We first, in Section 4.1, discuss how (non-scientific)societal norms, interests, preferences, values, laws and constitutions, cosmologies, and academia affectresearch and its validation and how participation is legitimized. Then, in Section 4.2 we switch toa philosophy of science perspective and ask what concept of science is included in Td, TM, and TSc.Both sections refer to the relationship between science and practice (i.e., stakeholder views) and, inparticular, to the question of in what way societal norms should direct scientific work (see Section 4.3).This will be achieved with the use of an extreme example, i.e., Aryan physics, which illuminates how“societal norms” hinder the development of science. We do not deal with the history of planningscience in this paper in detail.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 14 of 31

4.1. Social Norms Normative of Transitions

The three approaches, Td, TM, and TSc, refer to social norms in different manners. Td refers to theidea of science as a ‘public good’ and a set of pluralistic values (characteristic of democratic societies),the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [127], compatible constitutions, and other references. Td isseen as a tool of democracy tool (see above). In this sense, the normative social dimension is assignedto the interest, value, and cultural norm-based multi-stakeholder discourse. Td processes are lead(ideally) in a co-leadership with democratically legitimized decision makers. However, this does notmean that the scientist’s (personal) norms do not play a role. What societal issue is considered worthyof becoming a subject of Td research or how the process of stakeholder selection is performed is relatedto the normative (democratic) dimension. This is related to the “Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure,” which was developed by US professors in 1940 [128]. Please note that basic decisionson science funding (which are made on a governmental level) or foundations of (private or public)academic institutions are strongly constraining academic freedom and are normative by nature. Thisalso holds true in regard to if and what transition science is promoted (see below).

The TSc approach (which includes Td processes) does not fully follow the view that allstakeholders (referring to human rights and national constitutions) should be involved but ratherfocuses on certain stakeholder groups that are considered pioneers and forerunners of sustainabletransformation. Schneidewind and Borodowski [106] use the metaphor of a chemical catalyst. Whenreferring to normative societal missions (sustainable transitions), scientists may promote and lobbyfor specific forms of this transition if they create certain real-world labs and promote certain types oftransitions. Thus, scientists’ values and social norms are an important factor if we look at the decisionto participate in the transition process for TSc.

The TM position is more difficult to understand and to describe, as the conception is underdevelopment and has been used differently in recent decades. On the one hand, it is similar to Td, as itis seen as a method of co-creation “where different subsystems are shaping but not determining eachother (relative autonomy),” and it links “advantages of incrementalism (based on mutual adaptation)with the advantages of planning (based on long-term objectives)” [129]. On the other hand (see alsoSection 2.2. above), TM is shaped by a highly critical view of current Western societies in which“sustainability has become a problem by itself” [67] and is used as a starting point to fundamentallyquestion existing regimes and explore radical alternative futures. TM is seen in the light of a newtransformation that is, in essence, a “socioeconomic revolution” (p. 35). Thus, panarchy-like, disruptiveprocesses are likely. Scientists need to acknowledge the inherently normative societal role of researchand act as participants in transition processes to combine their normative impact with collecting deeperinsights, “part of societal networks normative in its orientation towards sustainability” (p. 68). Thisactivist perspective may become linked to a highly selective choice regarding which stakeholderswill be involved. This can be seen in the decision regarding which stakeholders will be invited. Forinstance, Rosendahl et al. [130] decided to “invite only organizations working with and for poor ruralgroups“. This is, finally, a subjective, activist (politically shaped) perspective that calls for careful(participatory) reflection both from an inner science and from a societal perspective [131]. Although wenaturally acknowledge that there are certain political systems or research questions that may call fortaking a selective strategy, we have to reflect carefully on the impacts of such decisions, both from aninner and a societal perspective. Biased selectivity in science excludes not only certain epistemics and(and legitimate) value systems, but also social facts (in the sense of Durkheim, e.g., the impact of normscan be measured) that may be important from a sustainable transition perspective. From a societyperspective, we have to be aware of not becoming (ideological) occupational activists [132], such asthe “non-problematicity” proponents who were also devaluing disciplinary work and hindering theclearinghouse and arbiter–honest broker function of science [133].

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 15 of 31

4.2. Normal vs. Postnormal Sciences

All major proponents of the presented approaches agree that the traditional science system has tobe changed. Simplified, the approaches differ in respect to whether an evolution of science is promotedthat supplements disciplinary research and interdisciplinarity or whether a revolution of science ispromoted with a new positioning and validation of the common science order. The latter is mostlydone when referring to postnormal science. For understanding this, a brief look at the history of thephilosophy of science is necessary.

In the 1960s, the relationship between science and society as well as the ingredients, objectives,and core criteria of science led to a distinction between “normal science” and “extraordinary orrevolutionary science” [134–136]. Simplified, normal science was organized by disciplines that usecertain paradigms (i.e., accepted subjects of research accepted by a certain scientific community) andmethodologies. Scientific revolutions take place if scientific theories produce anomalous results that arenot in coherence with reality or are full of contradictions. Here, we may argue that Td has become a new,third mode of science looking for a new paradigm, as the (socio-technological) complexity of real-worldproblems calls for new ways of doing and utilizing knowledge. This would require specifying thenature of (normal science) and practical knowledge and appraising or validating its use for certaintypes of problems [137]. The reference to disciplinary knowledge is taken as a major componentof socially robust knowledge (see Box 1i). However, in addition, the anomalies, the relativity, andthe limits of disciplinary (normal) science are acknowledged. This is expressed in Box 1iii withthe claim that the “unknown” (and what is not incorporated in a disciplinary paradigm) has to becommunicated frankly. This leads to the vision of “disciplined (i.e., discipline-based) interdisciplinarityin Td discourses” [97]. We should note that this view is widely shared by the main proponents of theTSc approach.

The TM approach makes a stronger reference to the postnormal science view [138–141], which isoften associated with a subjectivist, social constructivist view. This approach relies on Jerome Ravetz’sprovocative, valuable book [142] and his concept of critical science. In the context of this paper, thereare two main messages in Ravetz’s original book that are still the main pillars of post-modern science.One is the critique of the “industrialization of science” after WWII (including peer-review controlling)resulting in shoddy, faulty, substandard (quickly written), sloppy (and related to immature theories),and dirty (e.g., by contributing to produce the atomic bomb) contributions. The second is “far lessplausible [and] contends that traditional conception of science as an activity in the pursuit of truth,[is] obsolete” [143].

A recent book [144] on postnormal science takes the same route and starts with a critique of thefrauds and deceits of scientists, lacking reflection on its limits and the (naïve) aspiration of science tobe a “truth-producing machine” [144]. Merton’s ideas about the inner science norms of universalism,communality, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism may be widely lost [145,146]. This author isconvinced that this critique is partly reasoned and that new strategies are needed in order to maintainthe “clearinghouse function” of science [97]. However, the fundamental critique on the loss of thescientific mission of approaching a more realistic understanding of the universe is difficult to share.Science provides theories and models and not a copy of the real world. Every (senior) scientist knowsthat any scientific theory will be replaced by a better, more adequate one in the course of history [136].The history of the atom may be taken as example. Any verification calls for meta-levels [147]. As alreadyconveyed by the title of the book How to Lie with Statistics [148], any application of science calls forclarifying the prerequisites and assumptions made. However, many scientists demonstrate a lack ofhumility and even their work includes deceit and fraud [149,150]. Another, contrasting critique is thatscience is not properly contributing to policy. Thus, postnormal science “was designed to apply wherefacts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” [151].

Although the arguments of postmodern science are derived from a philosophy of scienceperspective and not from discourses or Td processes including different stakeholder groups, it isinteresting to see that citizen involvement in the sciences is being promoted. Postnormal sciences

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 16 of 31

suggest citizen science “whereby citizens of varying degrees of scientific literacy take it uponthemselves to examine and pronounce on the ‘goods’ and the ‘bads’ of science and technology”(p. 21); all quotes in this paragraph refer to [151], and thus it would become something akin to anexternal public clearinghouse. The authors are promoting “activist-citizen scientists” and “scientistcitizens”, for “breaking the effective monopoly of peer-reviewed journals” by urging “participation,transparency, and openness” among scientists and between science and practice. It is interesting tosee that this “occasionally anarchic” movement is believed to have “high morale and commitment”(p. 24). It is clear that, following this understanding, science becomes only one voice among others. Thespecific, historically developed differentiation of roles between scientists and practitioners is dissolved.If we change the topic to the arts, one may state that everybody wants to become a ballerina.

The two main pillars of postnormal science, i.e., abandoning the pursuit for realist descriptions andlooking for bottom-up citizen processes to validate science, consequently changes the role of sciencefundamentally. Instead of science as a societal institution that follows processes for approaching morerealistic descriptions of the world and that may assist all stakeholders in finding more reasoned andconsistent views for following their interests, science becomes one voice among others (see Figure 5).

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 16 of 30

themselves to examine and pronounce on the ‘goods’ and the ‘bads’ of science and technology” (p. 21); all quotes in this paragraph refer to [151], and thus it would become something akin to an external public clearinghouse. The authors are promoting “activist-citizen scientists” and “scientist citizens”, for “breaking the effective monopoly of peer-reviewed journals” by urging “participation, transparency, and openness” among scientists and between science and practice. It is interesting to see that this “occasionally anarchic” movement is believed to have “high morale and commitment” (p. 24). It is clear that, following this understanding, science becomes only one voice among others. The specific, historically developed differentiation of roles between scientists and practitioners is dissolved. If we change the topic to the arts, one may state that everybody wants to become a ballerina.

The two main pillars of postnormal science, i.e., abandoning the pursuit for realist descriptions and looking for bottom-up citizen processes to validate science, consequently changes the role of science fundamentally. Instead of science as a societal institution that follows processes for approaching more realistic descriptions of the world and that may assist all stakeholders in finding more reasoned and consistent views for following their interests, science becomes one voice among others (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. “Science as a public good” that serves all stakeholders (upper left) and “Science as one voice among others” (upper right) related to the discourse model of Td processes (see Figure 3) in which “Science” and “Legitimized Decision Makers” are included, and scientists induce a Td process including other stakeholders (when taking co-leadership), in turn inducing a process of mutual learning that includes representatives from all relevant stakeholder groups.

Figure 5. “Science as a public good” that serves all stakeholders (upper left) and “Science as onevoice among others” (upper right) related to the discourse model of Td processes (see Figure 3) inwhich “Science” and “Legitimized Decision Makers” are included, and scientists induce a Td processincluding other stakeholders (when taking co-leadership), in turn inducing a process of mutual learningthat includes representatives from all relevant stakeholder groups.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 17 of 31

4.3. Societal Norms in Science: The Professor as a Stakeholder

Publicly funded institutions such as universities are expected to contribute to social problemssuch as ‘the energy challenge’, ‘migration management’, or ‘coping with rebound effects in the digitalrevolution’. However, how this is done is, in the end, a matter of research, thus, unpredictable, and ithas to meet scientific standards. This, unfortunately, is often violated by the practice of fraudulent“courtesy expertise” for politics or industry [152,153] in order to gain a reputation (through sensationalresults) or money. This is not a new issue [150,154].

Historically, imposing social or religious ideas on science has been an overly delicate issue. Letus briefly look at (just) two examples. We first refer to Kant’s last major work, The Conflict of theFaculties [155], which was the object of censorship by the Prussian king. Kant’s diagnosis was thatthe science system is dependent on governments’ goodwill-dependent financing. He was criticizingthe aura of superiority given to theology, law, and medicine by funding and reputation, a result oftheir strong impacts on and appraisal by societal (utilitarian) interests. He was also criticizing thepolitical censorship of the contributions from the philosophical faculty that was striving toward botha data-based validation and a metaphysical understanding of nature (which today shows up in Mode 1Td). We can take from this that the “bidirectional impacts” of politics (and social opinions) and sciencehave been an issue since the birth of modern science.

However, professors often function as stakeholders. They switch hats as needed betweenuniversity professors, industrial leaders, and ministerial advisors [156]. This is common in certaincountries and may be seen as a malevolent interpretation of the Triple Helix concept. Naturally, thereare no real arguments against this role rotation, given that the separation between roles and functionsis properly mastered, but this is not always the case. One of the most evil cases of contamination hasbeen the case of “Aryan physics or physics of the Nordic natured human” [157]. We will look at this inorder to better understand and reflect on the limits of citizen science.

After WWI, an increasing number of German professors adopted nationalist, racist ethics [158].Thus, for instance, there was a vow of allegiance by the professors of German universities and highschools to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialistic State (supported by famous philosophers suchas Martin Heidegger and medical researchers such as Ferdinand Sauerbruch), which consideredthe National Socialist takeover “a complete turnover of our German life” (existence). “Any issuecalls for direction and every action responsibility”(The slightly extended German statement reads:“Die nationalsozialistische Revolution ist nicht bloß die Übernahme einer vorhandenen Macht imStaat durch eine andere [ . . . ] Partei, sondern diese Revolution bringt die völlige Umwälzungunseres deutschen Daseins. Von nun an fordert jedwedes Ding Entscheidung und alles TunVerantwortung.”) [159]. This clearly also addresses the way that science is conducted. Thus, theNobel Laureates Phillip Lenard (1862–1947) and Leonhard Stark (1874–1957) linked basic ideas ofthe Nazi worldview with their judgments of how science should work. “Jewish physics”, whichwas abstract and counterintuitive (e.g., the wave-particular dichotomy) was judged to be “only aparalogism (German Trugbild) and devolution (German: Entartungserscheinung) of the basic Aryanphysics [157] (translation of this and other sentences by R. W. Scholz). The situation at that timeresembled, at least in some aspects, the current debate on pure, disciplinary research. Based on themessage of the vow mentioned above, Deutsche or Aryan physics [157] was abandoning abstract,mathematical Jewish physics, such as Einstein’s quantum physics or intuitively paradox phenomenasuch as the wave-corpuscular theory of light, which did not meet the standard for “common sense”(German: gesunder Menschenverstand). Lenard was promoting a racist, Aryan subjectivism [157]based on principles such as “mechanistic understandability” (p. XX and “Kraft and Energy” (powerand energy). The theoretical mind of Werner Heisenberg was attacked as that of a Weisser Jude, whitejew; [160] and already tried to publicly defend the weird normative destruction of physics in thecentral newspaper of the Nazi Regime [161,162].

Lenard and Stark may be viewed as (Nazi-) stakeholder professors. Their example showshow science can become distorted by general folk or religious cosmologies (such as creationism).

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 18 of 31

Non-science rationales are used to judge ‘good’ and ‘bad’ scientific models. Naturally, there arefundamental differences between ‘Aryan physics’ and ‘sustainable physics’, but there are alsosimilarities. Mixed societal interests (in warfare or peace, on monism or pluralism, etc.) push, finance,or frame scientific activities. There are more than 150 papers with “sustainable chemistry” in their titlesin the web of science. When arguing what this means, for instance, Collins [163] refers to sustainablecivilization on Earth as a regulative idea or ethical imperative [164]. Utilizing chemistry or developingchemical knowledge for basing products on renewable resources, substituting oil-based chemicalreagents, and chemical processes with low or no pollution are clear operationable goals. However,they are interest-bound, as they refer to a certain prescriptive idea. This is certainly unavoidable andnot in itself bad, yet it implies that science is not and has presumably never been an autonomous,self-determining, or objective venture. This aligns with the insight that there is even a social (and thussubjective) nature (of truth) in a mathematical proof [165], as the validation is made by humans. Thechallenge is to make the normative dimension explicit and to properly reflect on it.

Against this background, this author is perplexed about the suggestion for an unstructured citizenevaluation of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ science by citizen panels (sometimes labeled the “democratization ofscience”). This is rather an absurd and potentially overly dangerous venture.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Transition to a Post-Industrial Society Calls for New Ways of Relating to Science and PracticeKnowledge for Complexity Management

The history of science in society shows that the conception, the subject, and the institutionalizationof science change with big societal transformations such as the Industrial Revolution. The transitionto the 21st century has, thus far, been shaped by tremendous changes including globalization,urbanization, digitalization, increasing distributional injustice, a revival of fierce medieval-likeintercultural and interreligious conflicts, the questioning of election-based parliamentarian democracyas a leading form of societal governance, climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and—based onthis ensemble of changes—perhaps even a redefinition of humanity and human rights. Thus, it isabsolutely and clearly beyond any doubt that the roles, functions, and institutionalization of scienceare going to change in fundamental ways [166].

The three discussed approaches—Td, TM, and TSc—may thus be seen simply as examples of newways of doing and utilizing science by redefining the relationship between science and society. Otherapproaches will develop. There are two main reasons for this. One is the new level of complexity ofreal-world processes resulting from the major transitions listed above and increased networking. Thiscalls for integrative perspectives, presumably from both a disciplinary inner-science perspective and asocietal perspective when the efficient use of segregated science knowledge is desired. Second, in theage of the Anthropocene, human actors become agents in the world system. Thus, no (large-scale)planning or policy can be accomplished without sufficiently incorporating stakeholders. A keychallenge here is the capacity to build consensus about what the main challenges are and whatprocesses humankind might employ to cope with them. A prerequisite for avoiding a hard landing isthe generation of reflective knowledge about tipping points, environmental and economic reboundeffects, etc.

5.2. Transdisciplinarity, Transition Management, and Transformative Science Show Different Types of Ruptureswith the Common Science Systems

Against the backdrop of searching for and identifying new ways to conduct and utilize science,two contrary approaches are taken among those discussed. Transdisciplinarity (Td) follows thevision of relating disciplinary, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinary processes. Thus, it utilizes thehistorically organized methods of codifying, transmitting, and developing scientific knowledge thatbegan with the Age of Enlightenment. By contrast, TM considers the current disciplinary organizationas obsolete, unreliable (i.e., full of errors and fraud), and, in some respects, dysfunctional. The strategy

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 19 of 31

and aspiration for TM is to proceed with a problem-based approach. This is, in certain respects,similar to Td, which also reverses science’s common top-down approach when starting from complex,societally relevant, real-word problems. One major difference is that role and function are assigned todisciplinary knowledge. Another is an overly rapid departure from the historically shaped foundationsof the scientific knowledge system, as suggested by the postnormal science perspective.

TM’s postnormal science is linked with several cosmological assumptions that we consider verycritical, in particular, if we reflect on the roles and functions of science (including social sciences,interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary science). The worldview of postnormal science eschews the basicaspiration of science to provide a more-realistic description of the real, material, biophysical world.This is recognized when pointing out the tremendous complexity where everything is connected andbasic constructs of scientific reasoning such as causality may not be meaningfully applied.

Neither Td nor TSc relinquishes the role and function of specific disciplinary knowledge forsustainable transitioning. Proponents of TSc also acknowledge the clearinghouse function of thedisciplines in the infinite discourse of building and validating new theories, conceptions, and constructsfor better describing and understanding the phenomena and dynamics of the world system. In theview of this author, TM’s skeptical approach with respect to the common science system is linked oreven culminates in the vision that citizens’ opinions should democratize science. From proponentsof citizen science, it has been suggested that citizen boards should evaluate what is good and whatis bad science [151]. As we have shown, this is a highly ‘populist’ venture and reminiscent of thediscussed promotion of good, orderly, understandable Aryan physics and the abandoning of bad,inapprehensible, counterintuitive Jewish physics in Germany circa 1930. The democratization ofdecisions about the (role and funding of) science systems should not be confused with the decisionabout when science is good, and therefore should be funded, from an inner-science perspective.

Naturally, there are several reasons for taking such a radical perspective and turning completelyaway from disciplines. One may be the lost belief in a current disciplinary science system that isdoubted to be faithful, self-reflexive, free from fraud, and characterized by science-ethos-based research.The other may be a missing epistemological differentiation between knowledge about the potential,limits, complementarity, and relationships between both scientific, rigor-based inferences, on the onehand, and experiential wisdom on the other. Both extremes are forms of epistemics that provide insightinto the functioning of the universe, and both have strengths as well as flaws. Which mode is superiordepends on the question to be answered and the subsystem of the universe that is considered. Weargue that complexity management calls for suitably linking different types of epistemics.

5.3. There Are Different Conceptions of Science as a Change Agent: Facilitation, Catalyst, and Activist

If we pinpoint the differences, one may state that TM is (also) focusing actions on potentiallydisruptive transitions. Td focuses on capacity building through mutual learning between scienceand practice, and TSc uses the metaphor of science as a catalyst, i.e., of an “element” that initiates,accelerates, and directs (social) processes in a desired direction. The terms activist (researcher),catalyst, and (reflexive) facilitator illuminate three different roles. One may conclude that the threeapproaches can be considered different tools from the same toolbox, all designed to better utilizescience knowledge for sustainable transitions and able to be applied in different settings (e.g., the Tdapproach relying on the Habermas deliberative discourse for certain prerequisites). Thus, the threeapproaches complement each other, such as different forms of action research and other approacheslike Translational Research [167].

5.4. There Is a Challenge in Developing a Proper Differentiation Perspective for Complex Transitions

There are two main structures that are dealt with differently by Td, TM, and TSc: the roleand function of scientific disciplines and the relationships between science and society. Whereasthe Td approach aspires to extend and to restructure the science system along the “disciplinedinterdisciplinarity on Td discourses” vision (shared by TSc), TM departs from the disciplinary matrix.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 20 of 31

Td stresses the specific epistemic and societal functions of science. In contrast, TM widely denies thedivision between science and practice.

The (formerly hierarchic) disciplinary science system is an invention of the 19th century and is ina process of rapid change and ongoing differentiation. There are more than 12,000 indexed journals inthe Thomson Reuters master journal list that can be considered vertebrae in the backbone of science.In addition, there may be a similar magnitude of different master courses, often closely related tospecific programs of professional education.

We argue that disciplinary processes of inner science have important functions in the futureof human history. These include the structured archiving, efficient codification, and ordering ofknowledge, and the quality and clearinghouse function of coherent, consistent theoretical andmethodological knowledge, with publications as a component of a filtering process as well as the socialorganization and evolution of science communities [168,169]. All three approaches agree that societyshould participate in the process of determining which problems are to be explored and resolved.However, we can easily see the Janus-facedness of “increased levels of advocacy whereby citizensexamine the ‘goods and the bads’ of science” [151]. Td includes stakeholders who take part in allaspects of a Td process and aspire toward co-leadership but also acknowledge the different types ofoutcomes and reward systems that scientists (e.g., scientific coherence) and practitioners (practicalefficacy and efficiency) are facing.

Furthermore, Td promotes the double-peer reviewing of papers, brochures, and books anda differentiation of inputs in the course of a Td process [170] and even develops methods for relatingand integrating different types of epistemics [27]. TM and other proponents of postnormal sciencedo not share this position. It appears that the researcher is sometimes changing hats (roles), and thespecific properties and functions of science as an abstracted, general reference system of theoriesand methods becomes completely lost in the process. Thus, the scientist’s social values and normsmay be at work in an unfiltered way, thereby denying minimum aspects of objectivity and reliability.The professor may act as a stakeholder (see Figures 3 and 5), and the different objectives and rewardsystems of science and practice may become unimportant [151].

We consider the anti-differentiationist (normal science) perspective (involved in TM) to be highlyproblematical from a cognitive and philosophy of science perspective. Humans cannot think withoutdifferentiation or classification. The postnormal science, TM, and other anti-differentiationist positions,finally “posit atomistic learning and social interaction” [168] when disregarding fundamental insightsinto the division of cognition [such as intuitive and analytic thinking which differently prevail scientistsand practitioner's thinking; [28,122,171] or the division of roles and functions in society, which is naturalfor any organismic in vivo system [172].

5.5. Normative Issues Are Present in All Domains of Science and Practice

To better cope with the normative dimension, we distinguish between universal and specificnorms and social and scientific norms. For human systems, there are ‘universal’ social norms (such ashuman rights) and specific social norms (such as personal norms, group norms, local cultural norms,etc.) that are applied by subsystems of the human species. We reveal that, in an era of transitioning toglobalization and global digital networking, ‘universal’ is a relative term. In the science system, we canfind general rules (e.g., for earning a PhD) and specific disciplinary rules and norms (each science hasits own standards for judging what is a high-quality product). There are ongoing attempts to normalize(and quantify) scientific products (e.g., by science citation indices or by 8000-word papers). However,the diversity of scientific work in the humanities, the arts, and engineering science, for instance, and,in particular, the new forms of interfacial activities of Td, TM, and TSc that generate new types ofprocesses and products (such sociotechnologically robust orientations) do not allow a full normalizingof scientific products. Td is at the crossroads in many respects [137]. There are pressing questionsabout what is and makes beneficial mutual learning and knowledge integration and how Td processescan be evaluated from a science and societal perspective. This calls for new criteria and rules.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 21 of 31

The complementarity between science and society is a construct (such as culture vs. nature) forbetter understanding certain issues. Science may be conceived as a subsystem or layer of society. The19th century idea of “freedom of research and teaching” (which is a part of many democratic countries’constitutions) is a normative issue referring to the interface between science and society. Td refers tothe science practice of complementarity (see Figure 2) by the idea of co-leadership for materializingegalitarian perspectives. There are double objectives for society (e.g., empowering practice) and science(e.g., redesigning the science system to enable better contributions to sensitive, contested, and complexsocietal transitions). This is a risky venture that requires new institutional settings, such as protecteddiscourse arenas (Td) or transition platforms (TM). We argue that (ideal) Td processes allow only forsponsorship and not for contract-based projects that often limit science access to data.

New normative dimensions emerge with respect to the intellectual property of ideas, the ownershipof sensitive data, or private or cultural secrets. These issues call for detailed contractual agreements. Letus consider two examples. Scientists have to clarify how (new and perhaps not yet finally assessed) datamay be handled without losing the freedom of research. Data on contaminated industrial sites or nuclearwaste disposals may serve as examples. However, in intercultural Td processes, there are culturallysensitive data that are the property of indigenous peoples, as this author experienced in an interculturalcase study of cancer treatment by Guatemalan Mayan healers [173,174]. Scientists and practitionersparticipating in Td, TM, and TSc processes are facing new types of accountability and responsibility.There is also a need for proper rules and framings to cope with the sometimes-uneven balance of powerbetween science and practice (as well as in non-contract-based ventures).

Many Td, TM, and TSc scientists legitimize their activities when referring to universal normsor agreements such as human rights, UN conventions, or the laws of national conventions such asenvironmental protections. This is, without a doubt, meaningful, as many universities are publicinstitutions. However, there are ambiguities with historically developing universal norms. For instance,the concept of human rights shaped by Eurocentric norms and values [175] differs from the humanconcept of “dignity of the human individual” [176,177], and Sharia law is seen as a different rulesystem “to enlarge freedom, justice, and opportunity for the perfectability of human beings” [178].This has been neglected and has been identified as the greatest challenge of relating knowledge inTd processes [97]. Although the United Nations is not a supranational institution (but rather only aninternational organization), the Declaration of Rio or the Paris Agreement on climate change wentinto effect in 2016 [179] and may be seen as a global norm-like commitment to which science mayrefer [180].

However, there are also conflictual norms on the level of a nation-state if you think about the topicof waterboarding (which were recently campaigned by US president’s Trump) [181], the wearing ofburqas (a cultural form of interpreting the Quran’s rule of modest dress (Qur’an, Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab),Verse 59), generation II and III nuclear power plants (as a resilient form of energy production), or meatconsumption in view of climate change. All these issues may be well dealt with using Td or similarprocesses. Scientists have their own personal norms and values. A critical and also normative questionis how the principle of accepting the otherness of the other, which is seen as a prerequisite for mutuallearning [15] and part of Td processes, is interpreted. Here, it is important to explicate the referencescheme of legitimization, interactions, and the roles played by different actors. We think that thechameleon-like change of role functions (“changing hats”) is critical, particularly in sensitive, contestedissues. According to the author’s experience, an activist role is often in conflict with, if not incompatiblewith, the position of a facilitator or with the idea of science as a public good.

5.6. Inventing New Institutions at the Interface of Science and Society

Since the founding of Bologna University around 1088, the institution of the (Western) universityhas been in a process of permanent change. The disciplinary-shaped 19th century Humboldtianuniversity introduced disciplines as unit divisions of knowledge, paving the way for communities ofspecialists [136]. The (German) university followed the functions of teaching (also for professional

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 22 of 31

education, particular for civil service), research, and Allgemeinbildung (general education) in the frameof unity and freedom of teaching and research [182]. The modern system of interacting disciplineswith conflicting multi-and interdisciplinary interfaces [183] is an important source for Td that emergedafter 1970 in an evolutionary manner (including speciation and extinction) [184]. Thus, the period forthe inbreeding of disciplines in disciplinary silos has passed to some extent.

Since the end of the 1980s, it appears that (at least in Central European universities) what have beencalled ‘third mission’ or ‘third stream’ activities have replaced Allgemeinbildung. This is particularlytrue when we look at the large number of universities of applied sciences that have popped up inmany countries. A recent literature review [185] identified a tremendous list of activities such asservices to businesses, developing a skilled workforce, spin-offs, knowledge transfer, communityservice, regional development, participating in policy making, and engaged research that have beensubsumed under a third mission in universities. We can see from this list that there has been scantreflection about the functional and institutional differentiations needed to properly serve the broadrange of societal demands.

Against this backdrop, we argue that the three different presented approaches do not all callfor the same institutional structure. Most, but not all, of the 41 case studies that were conductedby the members of the ITdNet [22] were run involving a large number of researchers from differentdisciplines, in particular those from urban studies, architecture, different types of engineering, anda wide range of social sciences. The length of the projects (one to five years) met disciplinary needsand started from project-based teaching and the foundation of a Td Lab in 2001. As early as 1993,the organizational chart of the Td case study showed the close connection both to a large scale ofscientific institutes and governmental institutions and stakeholder groups [186]. The Td Lab has nowbecome a departmental unit of the Environmental System Science at ETH Zurich.

The TSc approach is currently organized along an interfacial Center for Transformation Researchand Sustainability (TransZent) that is formally a joint project of the University of Wuppertal and the(private, see above) Wuppertal Research institute. The lab focuses on real-world labs in Wuppertal andtransformation research in North-Rhine Westphalia. The funding is based mostly on national researchand community funding. The TM approach started from the idea of problem-based, modeling-focusedintegrated science, which turned into a transition-oriented institute, DRIFT (Dutch Institute forTransition) in 2004. In the course of commercialization (e.g., by extensive tuitions) of the Dutchuniversities, DRIFT received a special position that calls for a major amount of external funding.This requires the institute to be highly dependent on external money, e.g., by projects of transitionconsultancy. Although the institute is related to the sociology institute, it is urged to take an innovativeapproach and offers “open courses to (a mix of) students, professionals, entrepreneurs, and seniorcitizens on the theory and practice of sustainability transitions. Our tailor-made offerings includein-company trainings and courses for (local) governments and organizations, thesis supervision formaster and PhD students, and research internships” [187]. This may suggest the form of an affiliatedinstitute that is allowed to use the facilities of a university but is funded privately or funded by publicresearch programs, as has been successfully demonstrated by the ISOE institute as a promoter oftransdisciplinarity of socio-ecological research for almost 30 years [188,189].

Walking along the road from project initiation to joint problem-definition via co-designing a study,co-construction of knowledge, co-funding, and co-leadership by both science and practice is a rathercomplex and laborious activity that requires solid, basic long-term funding for scientists. Naturally,teaching and research in the frame of Td, TM, and TSc are in competition with other forms of teachingand research. Scholz and Marks [25] suggested that Td research and processes may be best placed in Tdcolleges with mid-term projects or even Td universities as suggested by Jantsch [190] that also providethe infrastructure and incentives for people from practice to continuously participate in the governingof a Td study. However, in addition, scientists from different domains may join such institutions forsome months or years. Because the link to disciplines is important for Td, a Td college may be wellplaced as a pivotal institution in or between university faculties.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 23 of 31

6. Conclusions

The questions “How should research be done?” (i.e., inner science norms), “What is the sciencegood for?” and “How should science be supported?” (i.e., social norms related to science) areubiquitous in science. This also holds true for Td, TM, and TSc. All three approaches aspire toutilize science for contributing to the ongoing reflexive transition to a post-industrial, sustainablesociety by collaborating with stakeholders and policy makers. Thus, there is consistency in regard tosocietal objectives (i.e., the “good for”) and similarity and overlap with respect to many issues.

However, the approaches differ with respect to the question of how research should be conducted.TM is following the tradition of postnormal science and thus departing from some science norms(such as striving for more realistic descriptions of the universe). In contrast, Td maintains the normalapproach to science and aspires to extend and alter the science system by transdisciplinary processes.TSc includes many ideas from Td and its methodology and also acknowledges the clearinghousefunction of disciplines. TSc aspires to a new governance of science under the perspective of efficientuse for local and global societal goals.

There are differences in the roles scientists play in their interaction with practitioners. We havecoined these roles facilitator, activist, and catalyst. Td starts from the perspective of science asa public good that should serve all stakeholders and is aspiring to co-leadership in Td processes witha democratically legitimized stakeholder. Scientists contribute to a facilitated theory–practice discourseor play the role of facilitator in developing socially robust orientations. TM is more action oriented andtakes a more selective approach, participating in specific activities that meet the scientists (personal)norms of what science should look like in the future. Thus, scientists take an activist role. TSc followsthe vision of the scientist as an initiator of and catalyst for sustainable transitioning.

Today’s societies are increasingly requesting that universities serve as helpmates (Kofferträger)in order to solve certain problems. The “modern university has become a hybrid institution, withmultiple and sometimes incommensurable missions” [98]. We can learn from this paper that new tasksand missions call for new institutional settings. This refers not only to boundary settings but also toinner-university structures and processes that allow us to properly shape and protect inner-sciencedynamics and the increasing need for an efficient use of scientific knowledge in order to better copewith the challenges of the 21st century. Universities, governmental institutions, industry, and thepublic at large are challenged to promote institutions at the interface between science and society,which may properly acknowledge and relate the normative dimensions of science and practice.

Acknowledgments: I want to thank Karoline Augenstein, Derk Loorbach, Uwe Schneidewind, and Gerald Steinerfor their extensive, detailed, and stimulating feedback to this paper and Elaine Ambrose for the editing of the text.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References and Notes

1. Bernal, J.D. Science in History; Penguin: Hammondsworth, UK, 1965.2. Bernal, J.D. Preface; Faber & Faber: London, UK, 1954.3. Jantsch, E. Inter-and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sci.

1970, 1, 403–428. [CrossRef]4. United Nations (UN). Agenda 21. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

Annex I and II; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1992.5. Häberli, R.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W. Transdisziplinarität zwischen Förderung und Überforderung.

Erkenntnisse aus dem SPP Umwelt. GAIA 1998, 7, 196–213. [CrossRef]6. Klein, J.T.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Häberli, R.; Bill, A.; Scholz, R.W.; Welti, M. Transdisciplinarity: Joint

Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity; Birkhäuser:Basel, Switzerland, 2001.

7. Scholz, R.W.; Häberli, R.; Bill, A.; Welti, M. Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technologyand society. Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions; Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag: Zürich, Switzerland, 2000.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 24 of 31

8. Häberli, R.; Scholz, R.W.; Bill, A.; Welti, M. Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem-Solving among Science,Technology and Society. Workbook I: Dialogue Sessions and Idea Market; Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag: Zürich,Switzerland, 2000.

9. Stephens, J.C.; Hernandez, M.E.; Roman, M.; Graham, A.C.; Scholz, R.W. Higher education as a change agentfor sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 317–338. [CrossRef]

10. Schneidewind, U.; Feindt, P.H.; Meister, H.P.; Minsch, J.; Schulz, T.; Tscheulin, J. Institutionelle Reformenfür eine Politik der Nachhaltigkeit: Vom Was zum Wie in der nachhaltigkeitsdebatte. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect.Sci. Soc. 1997, 6, 182. [CrossRef]

11. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted and Openedfor Signature, Ratification and Accession; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

12. Scholz, R.W.; (Faculty of Economics and Globalization); Loorbach, D.; (The Dutch Research Institutefor Transitions); Uwe Schneidewind; (Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy). Personalcommunication, 2017.

13. Scholz, R.W.; Mieg, H.A.; Oswald, J. Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management: Towards mutuallearning of science and society. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2000, 123, 477–487. [CrossRef]

14. Scholz, R.W.; Roy, A.H.; Hellums, D.T. Sustainable phosphorus management: A global transdisciplinarychallenge. In Sustainable Phosphorus Management: A Global Transdisciplinary Roadmap; Scholz, R.W., Roy, A.H.,Brand, F.S., Hellums, D.T., Ulrich, A.E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 1–129.

15. Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. The real type and the ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part I—Theoreticalfoundations. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 527–544. [CrossRef]

16. Binder, C.R.; Absenger-Helmli, I.; Schilling, T. The reality of transdisciplinarity: A framework-basedself-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 545–562. [CrossRef]

17. Scholz, R.W.; Le, Q.L. A novice’s guide to transdisciplinarity. In Sustainable Phosphorus Management: A GlobalTransdisciplinary Roadmap; Scholz, R.W., Roy, A.H., Brand, F.S., Hellums, D.T., Ulrich, A.E., Eds.; Springer:Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 118–122.

18. Pohl, C.; Rist, S.; Zimmermann, A.; Fry, P.; Gurung, G.S.; Schneider, F.; Speranza, C.I.; Kiteme, B.; Boillat, S.;Serrano, E.; et al. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research inKenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci. Publ. Policy 2010, 37, 267–281. [CrossRef]

19. Loukopoulos, P.; Scholz, R.W. Sustainable future urban mobility: Using ‘area development negotiations’ forscenario assessment and participatory strategic planning. Environ. Plan. A 2004, 36, 2203–2226. [CrossRef]

20. Scholz, R.W.; Tietje, O. Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge; Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002.

21. Scholz, R.W.; Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Walter, A.I.; Stauffacher, M. Transdisciplinary case studies as a meansof sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2006, 7, 226–251.[CrossRef]

22. Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. The real type and the ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part II—Whatconstraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 653–671. [CrossRef]

23. Scholz, R.W.; Bösch, S.; Koller, T.; Mieg, H.A.; Stünzi, J. Industrieareal Sulzer-Escher Wyss: Umwelt undBauen-Wertschöpfung durch Umnutzung (ETH-UNS Fallstudie 1995); VDF: Zurich, Switzerland, 1996.

24. Scholz, R.W.; Bösch, S.; Stauffacher, M.; Oswald, J. Zukunft Schiene Schweiz 1: Ökoeffizientes Handeln der SBB.ETH-UNS Fallstudie 1999 (ETH-UNS Case Study 1999); Rüegger: Zurich, Switzerland, 2001.

25. Scholz, R.W.; Marks, D. Learning about transdisciplinarity: Where are we? Where have we been? Whereshould we go? In Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society; Klein, J.T.,Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R.W., Welti, M., Eds.; Birkhäuser Verlag AG: Basel,Switzerland, 2001; pp. 236–252.

26. Scholz, R.W.; Stünzi, J.; Mieg, H.A.; Bösch, S. Methods for interface management: InterdisciplinaryETH-UNS case studies for sustainability. In Sustainable Development: The Role of the Universities; Stuhler, E.A.,Vezjak, M., Eds.; Hampp: München, Germany, 2000; pp. 23–32.

27. Vilsmaier, U.; Engbers, M.; Luthardt, P.; Maas-Deipenbrock, R.-M.; Wunderlich, S.; Scholz, R.W. Case basedmutual learning sessions: Knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain. Sci.2015, 10, 563–580. [CrossRef]

28. Scholz, R.W. Cognitive Strategies in Stochastic Thinking; Reidel: Dordrecht, The Netherelands, 1987.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 25 of 31

29. Laws, D.; Scholz, R.W.; Shiroyama, H.; Susskind, L.; Suzuki, T.; Weber, O. Expert views on sustainability andtechnology implementation. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2004, 11, 247–261. [CrossRef]

30. Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Chidzero, B.; Fadika, F.; Hauff, V. Our Common Future;UN: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

31. Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 1946, 2, 34–46. [CrossRef]32. Lewin, K. Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In Resolving Social Conflicts & Field

Theory in Social Science; Lewin, K., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1946;pp. 337–381.

33. Lewin, K. Field theory and experiment in social psychology. Am. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 868–897. [CrossRef]34. Njoroge, R.; Birech, R.; Arusey, C.; Korir, M.; Mutisya, M.; Scholz, R.W. Transdisciplinary processes of

developing, applying, and evaluating a method for improving smallholder farmers’ access to (phosphorus)fertilizers: The SMAP method. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 601–619. [CrossRef]

35. Lewin, K. The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry 1945,8, 126–136. [CrossRef]

36. Scholz, R.W.; Stauffacher, M. Transdisziplinaritäts-Laboratorium ETH-UNS Fallstudie-Werkstatt für einneuartiges Zusammenwirken von Wissenschaft und Praxis. In Zukunft Schiene Schweiz; Scholz, R.W., Bösch, S.,Stauffacher, M., Oswald, J.E., Eds.; Rüegger: Zurich, Switzerland, 2001; pp. 243–254.

37. Argyris, C.; Schön, D.A. Partcipatory action research and action science compared. In Participatory ActionResearch; Whyte, W.F., Ed.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 85–96.

38. Whyte, W.F. Participatory Action Research; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991.39. Wallerstein, N.; Duran, B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research:

The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, S40–S46.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

40. Israel, B.A.; Schulz, A.J.; Parker, E.A.; Becker, A.B. Review of community-based research: Assessingpartnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 1998, 19, 173–202. [CrossRef][PubMed]

41. Strohschneider, P. Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft. In Die Verfassung des Politischen; Brodocz, A.,Herrmann, D., Schmidt, R., Schulz, D., Wessel, J.S., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014.

42. Scholz, R.W.; Ulrich, A.E.; Eilittä, M.; Roy, A.H. Sustainable use of phosphorus: A finite resource.Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 461–462, 799–803. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

43. Scholz, R.W.; Wellmer, F.-W. Approaching a dynamic view on the availability of mineral resources: What wemay learn from the case of phosphorus? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 11–27. [CrossRef]

44. Steiner, G.; Geissler, B.; Watson, I.; Mew, M. Efficiency development in phosphate rock mining over the lastthree decades. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 235–245. [CrossRef]

45. Shiroyama, H.; Yarime, M.; Matsuo, M.; Schroeder, H.; Scholz, R.; Ulrich, A.E. Governance for sustainability:Knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 45–55.[CrossRef]

46. Yarime, M.; Trencher, G.; Mino, T.; Scholz, R.W.; Olsson, L.; Ness, B.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Rotmans, J. Establishingsustainability science in higher education institutions: Towards an integration of academic development,institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 101–113. [CrossRef]

47. Steiner, G.; Posch, A. Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: Aninnovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 877–890. [CrossRef]

48. Steiner, G.; Laws, D. How appropriate are two established concepts from higher education for solvingcomplex real-world problems? A comparison of the Harvard and the ETH case study approach. Int. J.Sustain. High. Educ. 2006, 7, 322–340. [CrossRef]

49. Polk, M.; Knutsson, P. Participation, value rationality and mutual learning in transdisciplinary knowledgeproduction for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 643–653. [CrossRef]

50. Schulleitung der ETH Zürich. Strategie und Entwicklungsplan 2012–2016; Schulleitung der ETH Zürich:Zürich, Switzerland, 2012.

51. Wellmer, F.-W. Geleitwort. In Strategische Rohstoffe—Risikovorsorge; Kausch, P., Bertau, M., Gutzmer, J.,Matschullat, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013.

52. Rotmans, J.; Hulme, M.; Downing, T.E. Climate-change implications for Europe—An application of theescape model. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 1994, 4, 97–124. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 26 of 31

53. Rotmans, J.; Denelzen, M.G.J.; Krol, M.S.; Swart, R.J.; Vanderwoerd, H.J. Stabilizing atmosphericconcentrations-towards international methane control. Ambio 1992, 21, 404–413.

54. Martens, P.; Rotmans, J. Transitions in a Globalising World; Swets & Zeitlinger: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002.55. Voß, J.-P.; Smith, A.; Grin, J. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sci. 2009,

42, 275–302. [CrossRef]56. Kemp, R.; Rotmans, J. Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy

innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 303. [CrossRef]57. Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; van Asselt, M.B.A. More evolution then revolution: Transition management in public

policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–32. [CrossRef]58. Loorbach, D.; (The Dutch Research Institute For Transitions); Scholz, R.W.; (Faculty of Economics and

Globalization). Personal communication, 2017.59. Leydesdorff, L. The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 243–255.

[CrossRef]60. Bergmann, M.; Jahn, T.; Knobloch, T.; Krohn, W.; Pohl, C. Methods for Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for

Practice; Campus: Munich, Germany, 2013.61. Wittmayer, J.M. Transition Management, Action Research and Actor Roles: Understanding Local Sustainability

Transitions; Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.62. Grin, J.; Rotmans, J.; Schot, J. Conclusion: How to understand transitions? How to influence them? Synthesis

and lessons for further research. In Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of LongTerm Transformative Change; Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010; pp. 320–328.

63. Wittmayer, J.M.; Schäpke, N. Action, research and participation: Roles of researchers in sustainabilitytransitions. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 483–496. [CrossRef]

64. Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspectiveand a case study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [CrossRef]

65. Loorbach, D. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-basedgovernance framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [CrossRef]

66. Kemp, R.; Martens, P. Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never canbe achieved? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2007, 3, 1–10.

67. Loorbach, D. To Transition! Governance Panarchy in the New Transformation; Faculty of Social Science:Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.

68. Holling, C.S. Simplifying the complex: The paradigms of ecological function and structure. Eur. J. Oper. Res.1987, 30, 139–146. [CrossRef]

69. Ehrlich, P.R.; Holdren, J.P. Impact of population growth. Science 1971, 171, 1212–1217. [CrossRef] [PubMed]70. Diamond, J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1994.71. Ehrlich, P.R. The Population Bomb; Ballentine: New York, NY, USA, 1986.72. Rio Declaration. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA): Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992.73. Mintzer, I.M.; Leonard, J.A. Negotiating Climate Change: The Inside Story of the Rio Convention; Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994.74. Boulding, K. The Meaning of the Twentieth Century: The Great Transition; Harper & Row: London, UK, 1965.75. Great Transition Initiative. Toward a Transformative Vision and Practice. 2016. Available online: http:

//www.greattransition.org/ (accessed on 13 May 2017).76. Pearce, D.W.; Turner, R.K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment; John Hopkins University Press:

Baltimore, MD, USA, 1990.77. Daly, H.E. Operationalizing sustainable development by investing in natural capital. In Investing in

Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability; Jannsson, A., Hammer, H., Folke, C.,Costanza, R., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; pp. 21–37.

78. Minsch, J.; Eberle, A.; Meier, B.; Schneidewind, U. Nachhaltige Entwicklung—Das Referenzsystem Mut zumökologischen Umbau; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1996; pp. 15–34.

79. North, D.C. The new institutional economics and their development. In The New Institutional Economics andTheir Development; Hariss, J., Hunter, J., Lewis, V.L., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1995; pp. 17–26.

80. Williamson, O.E. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. J. Econ. Lit. 2000, 38,593–613. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 27 of 31

81. Schneidewind, U.; Augenstein, K. Three schools of transformation thinking the impact of ideas, institutions,and technological innovation on transformation processes. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2016, 25, 88–93.[CrossRef]

82. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU). Welt im Wandel:Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine große Transformation; WBGU: Berlin, Germany, 2011.

83. WBGU. Factsheet No. 3/2011: Global Megatrends; Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung GlobaleUmweltveränderungen (WBGU): Berlin, Germany, 2012.

84. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU). Factsheet No. 1/2011:A Social Contract for Sustainability; WBGU: Berlin, Germany, 2011.

85. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU). Factsheet No. 5/2011:Research and Education: Drivers of Transformation; WBGU: Berlin, Germany, 2011.

86. Schneidewind, U. Transformative Literacy: Gesellschaftliche Veränderungsprozesse verstehen und gestalten.GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2013, 22, 82–86.

87. Schneidewind, U.; Ernst, A.; Lang, D.J. Institutions for transformative research. the formation of the nawisalliance. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2011, 20, 133–135.

88. Schneidewind, U.; Singer Brodowski, M. Transformative Wissenschaft. Klimawandel im deutschenWissenschafts-und Hochschulsystem; Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2013.

89. Knoblauch, D.; Müller, K. Nicht-Staatliche Umweltpolitikforschung und die Rolle des Staates; Ecologic Institute:Berlin, Germany, 2014.

90. Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Augenstein, K. Transformative science for sustainability transitions.In Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace; Bauch, C.T., Oswald Spring, U., Eds.; Springer:Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 123–136.

91. Groß, M.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Krohn, W. Realexperimente: Robustheit und Dynamik ökologischerGestaltungen in der Wissensgesellschaft. Soziale Welt 2003, 54, 241–257.

92. Wanner, M.; Hilger, A.; Westerkowski, J.; Rose, M.; Schäpke, N.; Stelzer, F. Towards a cyclical concept ofreal-world laboratories. disP Plan Rev. Accepted.

93. Brunswik, E. Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychol. Rev. 1955,62, 193–217. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

94. Girod, B.; de Haan, P.; Scholz, R.W. Consumption-as-usual instead of ceteris paribus assumption fordemand–Integration of potential rebound effects into LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 3–11. [CrossRef]

95. Schneidewind, U.; Scheck, H. Die Stadt als “Reallabor“für Systeminnovationen. In Soziale Innovation undNachhaltigkeit. Perspektiven sozialen Wandels; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013; pp. 229–248.

96. Baden-Württemberg. Forschung für nachhaltigkeit: 7 Millionen Euro für die Einrichtung von Reallaborenan Hochschulen: Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Presse-und ÖffentlichkeitsarbeitBaden-Württemberg.

97. Scholz, R.W. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions; Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge, UK, 2011.

98. Scott, P. From professor to ‘knowledge worker’: Profiles of the academic profession. Minerva 2007, 45,205–215. [CrossRef]

99. Trischler, H.; vom Bruch, R. Forschung für den Markt: Geschichte der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft; CH Beck: Munich,Germany, 1999.

100. CSsP. Climate changes Spatial Planning Programme. 2016. Available online: http://www.climatechangesspatialplanning.nl (accessed on 13 May 2017).

101. Vellinga, P.; Driessen, P.; van Deelen, K.; Slegers, M.F.W.; Döpp, S.P.; Heinen, M.; de Pater, F.; Piek, O.;van Nieuwaal, K. Knowledge for Climate 2008–2014; Foundation Knowledge for Climate: Utrecht,The Netherlands, 2016.

102. DRIFT. Drift for Transition. Available online: https://www.drift.eur.nl/ (accessed on 2 February 2017).103. Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Augenstein, K.; Stelzer, F. Pledge for a Transformative Science;

Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal, Germany, 2016.104. Lancy, D.F. The indigenous mathematics project. Edu. Stud. Math. 1978, 12, 445–453. [CrossRef]105. ETH-Rat. Strategische Planung 2012–2016 des ETH-Rats für den ETH-Bereich; ETH-Rat: Bern, Switzerland, 2012.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 28 of 31

106. Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowski, M. Vom experimentellen Lernen zum transformativenExperimentieren: Reallabore als Katalysator für eine lernende Gesellschaft auf dem Weg zu einernachhaltigen Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik 2015, 16, 10–23.

107. Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzmann, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. The New Production of Knowledge;Sage: London, UK, 1994.

108. Cartlidge, E. Relief greets acquittals in Italy earthquake trial. Science 2014, 346, 794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]109. Grunwald, A. Transformative Wissenschaft–Eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA 2015, 24,

17–20. [CrossRef]110. Wissel, C.V. Die Eigenlogik der Wissenschaft neu verhandeln: Implikationen einer transformativen

Wissenschaft. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2015, 24, 152–155. [CrossRef]111. Schneidewind, U. Transformative Wissenschaft—Motor für gute Wissenschaft und lebendige Demokratie.

GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2015, 24, 88–91. [CrossRef]112. Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.; Gibbons, M. Rethinking Science-Knowledge and the Public on an Age of Uncertainty; Polity:

London, UK, 2001.113. Scholz, R.W.; Stauffacher, M.; Krütli, P.; Moser, C.; Flüeler, T. Meeting the challenges of radioactive waste

management: Transdisciplinarity and the role of science. Presented at the Managing Radioactive Waste:Problems and Challenges in a Globalizing World, Gothenburg, Sweden, 15–17 December 2009.

114. Scholz, R.W. Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In Transdisciplinarity: JointProblem-Solving among Science, Technology and Society. Workbook II: Mutual Learning Sessions; Scholz, R.W.,Häberli, R., Bill, A., Welti, W., Eds.; Haffmans Sachbuch: Zürich, Switzerland, 2000; pp. 13–17.

115. Wiek, A. Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—Experiences fromtransdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2007, 16, 52–57. [CrossRef]

116. Hammond, K.R. Principles of Organisation in Intuitive and Analytical Cognition; University of Colorado, Instituteof Behavioral Science: Boulder, CO, USA, 1981.

117. Stolt, C.-M.; Klein, G.; Jansson, A.T. An analysis of a wrong Nobel Prize—Johannes Fibiger, 1926: A study inthe Nobel archives. Adv. Cancer Res. 2004, 92, 1–12. [PubMed]

118. Jaffe, A.; Quinn, F. Theoretical mathematics–toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoreticalphysics. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1993, 29, 1–13. [CrossRef]

119. Schneidewind, U.; Augenstein, K. Analyzing a transition to a sustainability-oriented science system inGermany. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2012, 3, 16–28. [CrossRef]

120. Stolley, P.D.; Lasky, T. Fibiger, Johannes and his Nobel-Prize for the hypothesis that a worm causesstomach-cancer. Ann. Int. Med. 1992, 116, 765–769. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

121. Croskerry, P.; Petrie, D.A.; Reilly, J.B.; Tait, G. Deciding about fast and slow decisions. Acad. Med. 2014, 89,197–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

122. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011.123. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought.

Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2009, 19, 292–305. [CrossRef]124. Wellmer, F.-W.; Scholz, R.W. Peak minerals: What can we learn from the history of mineral economics and

the cases of gold and phosphorus? Miner. Econ. 2016. [CrossRef]125. Scholz, R.W.; Wellmer, F.W. Comment on: “Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources:

A critique” by Edixhoven et al.—Clarifying comments and thoughts on key conceptions, conclusions andinterpretation to allow for sustainable action. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2016, 7, 103–117. [CrossRef]

126. Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy; MIT Press:Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.

127. UN General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; UN General Assembly: New York, NY,USA, 1948.

128. Metzger, W.P. The 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. Law Contemp. Probl. 1990,53, 3–77. [CrossRef]

129. Kemp, R.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J. Transition management as a model for managing processes ofco-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14, 78–91. [CrossRef]

130. Rosendahl, J.; Zanella, M.A.; Rist, S.; Weigelt, J. Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity intransdisciplinarity. Futures 2015, 65, 17–27. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 29 of 31

131. Popa, F.; Guillermin, M.; Dedeurwaerdere, T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainabilityresearch: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 2015, 65, 45–56. [CrossRef]

132. McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate changepolicy. Soc. Probl. 2003, 50, 348–373. [CrossRef]

133. Pielke, R.A., Jr. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics; Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK, 2007.

134. Popper, K.R. Normal science and its dangers. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge; Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge, UK, 1970; pp. 51–59.

135. Musgrave, A.; Lakatos, I. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Volume 4: Proceedings of the InternationalColloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1970.

136. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1962.137. Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 521–526. [CrossRef]138. Funtowicz, S.O.; Ravetz, J.R. Values And Uncertainties. In Handbook of Transdisciplinarity; Hirsch-Hadorn, G.,

Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U.,Zemp, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 361–368.

139. Funtowicz, S.O.; Ravetz, J.R. Post-Normal Science. In International Society for Ecological Economics.Available online: http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2014).

140. Funtowicz, S.O.; Ravetz, J.R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993, 7, 735–755. [CrossRef]141. Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Thissen, W. A transition research perspective on governance for sustainability.

In European Research on Sustainable Development; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 73–89.142. Ravetz, J.R. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1971.143. Moor, J.H. Scientific knowledge and its social problems—Ravetz, J.R. Philos. Sci. 1973, 40, 455–457. [CrossRef]144. Benessia, A.; Funtowicz, S.; Giampietro, M.; Pereira, Â.G.; Ravetz, J.R.; Saltelli, A.; Strand, R.; van der

Sluijs, J.P. Science on the Verge: Amazon Book, in the Series “The Rightful Place of Science” Consortium for Science;Policy & Outcomes Tempe: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.

145. Weingart, P. Norms in science. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier:Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 10720–10723.

146. Merton, R.K. Science and democratic social structure. In Social Theory and Social Structure; Free Press: Scotland,UK, 1957.

147. Gödel, K. Über formal unterscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I.Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 1931, 38, 173–198. [CrossRef]

148. Huff, D. How to Lie with Statistics; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1954.149. Woolf, P.K. Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Ann. Int. Med. 1986, 104, 254–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]150. Koshland, D.E. Fraud in science. Science 1987, 235, 141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]151. Saltelli, A.; Ravetz, J.R.; Funtowicz, S. Who will solve the crisis in science? In Science on the Verge; Ravetz, J.R.,

Funtowicz, S., Benessia, A., Eds.; Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes: Arizona State University:Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–30.

152. Sox, H.C.; Rennie, D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons fromthe Poehlman case. Ann. Int. Med. 2006, 144, 609–613. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

153. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? JME 2010,2010, 038125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

154. Zirkle, C. Citation of fraudulent data. Science 1954, 120, 189–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]155. Kant, I. The Conflict of the Faculties, German: Der Streit der Fakultäten; Abraris Books: New York, NY, USA, 1979.156. Jasanoff, S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA,

USA, 2009.157. Lenard, P. Deutsche Physik, Bd. 1; Julius Friedrich Lehmann: Munich, Germany, 1936.158. Weindling, P. Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism; Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993; pp. 1870–1945.159. Deutschland-Nationalsozialistischer Lehrerbund. Sachsen (1933), Bekenntnis der Professoren an den

deutschen Universitäten und Hochschulen zu Adolf Hitler und dem nationalsozialistischen Staat. Availableonline: https://archive.org/details/bekenntnisderpro00natiuoft (accessed on 5 June 2017).

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 30 of 31

160. Stark, J. Weisse Juden in der Wissenschaft. In Das Schwarze Korps. 1937. Availableonline: https://www.archiv.unileipzig.de/heisenberg/physik_deutsche_familie/Heisenberg_und_die_Deutsche_Ph/heisenberg.htm (accessed on 2 February 2017).

161. Heisenberg, W. Deutsche und jüdische Physik. Völkischer Beobachter 1936, 59, 6.162. Menzel, W. Deutsche und jüdische Physik. Völkischer Beobachter 1936. Nr. 29.163. Collins, T. Toward sustainable chemistry. Science 2001, 291, 48–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]164. Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984.165. Scholz, R.W. Umweltforschung zwischen Formalwissenschaft und Verständnis: Muss man den Formalismus

beherrschen, um die Formalisten zu schlagen? In Umweltforschung quergedacht: Perspektiven integrativerUmweltforschung und -lehre; Daschkeit, A., Schröder, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1998; pp. 309–328.

166. Dedeurewaerdere, R. Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2014.167. Wethington, E.; Dunifon, R. Reach for the Public Good: Applying the Methods of Translational Research to Improve

Human Health and Well-Being; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.168. Shinn, T. New sources of radical innovation: Research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning

in a post-industrial order. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2005, 44, 731–764. [CrossRef]169. Abbott, A. The disciplines and the future. In The Disciplines and the City of Intellect: The Changing American

Universities; Brint, S., Ed.; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 205–230.170. Krutli, P.; Stauffacher, M.; Flueler, T.; Scholz, R.W. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological

decision-making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J. Risk Res. 2010, 13, 861–875.[CrossRef]

171. Hammond, K.R.; Hamm, R.M.; Grassia, J.; Pearson, T. Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive andanalytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans. SMC 1987, 17, 753–770. [CrossRef]

172. Chapple, E.D.; Coon, C.S. Principles of Anthropology; Henry Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1953.173. Scholz, R.W. Transdisziplinäre Krebsforschung mit den Mayas. Das Macocc Projekt—Body-Mind

Komplementaritäten auf der Ebene der Zelle, des Patienten und der therapeutischen Allianz. EANU Spec.2012, 7, 1–38.

174. Berger González, M. Towards Relating Maya and Contemporary Conceptions of Cancer: A Transdisciplinary Processto Foster Intercultural Scientific Exchange; ETH Zurich: Zurich, Switzerland, 2015.

175. Bonnet, S. Overcoming eurocentrism in human rights: Postcolonial critiques–Islamic answers? Muslim WorldJ. Hum. Rights 2015, 12, 1–24. [CrossRef]

176. Donnelly, J. Human rights and human dignity: An analytic critique of non-Western conceptions of humanrights. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1982, 76, 303–316. [CrossRef]

177. Rehman, J. Islam and Human Rights: Is Compatibility Achievable between the Sharia and Human RightsLaw? Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2373930 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2373930(accessed on 2 January 2014).

178. Said, A.A. Precept and practice of human-rights in Islam. Univ. Hum. Rights 1979, 1, 63–79. [CrossRef]179. Paris agreement to enter into force as EU agrees ratification. Available online: http://unfccc.int/paris_

agreement/items/9444.php (accessed on 12 January 2017).180. Ekardt, F. Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit; Nomos: Marburg, Germany, 2016.181. Appuzzo, M.; Risen, J. Donald Trump Faces Obstacles to Resuming Waterboarding; NY Times: New York, NY,

USA, 2016.182. Paletschek, S. Die Erfindung der Humboldtschen Universität. Hist. Anthropol. 2002, 10, 183–205. [CrossRef]183. Stichweh, R. Scientific Disciplines, History of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences;

Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2001.184. Cohen, E.B.; Lloyd, S.J. Disciplinary evolution and the rise of the transdiscipline. Inf. Sci. Int J.

Emerg. Transdiscipl. 2014, 17, 189–215.185. Roessler, I.; Duong, S.; Hachmeister, C.-D. Welche Missionen haben Hochschulen: Third Mission als Leistung

der Fachhochschulen für die und mit der Gesellschaft; Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung gGmbH: Gütersloh,Germany, 2015.

186. Koller, T.; Mieg, H.A.; Schmidlin, C.; Scholz, R.W. Was ist und was soll Die Fallstudie 94; VDF: Zürich,Switzerland, 1995; pp. 13–38.

187. DRIFT. Academy. Education Plays a Crucial Role in Preparing People for Transition Challenges. Availableonline: https://www.drift.eur.nl/academy/ (accessed on 12 January 2017).

Sustainability 2017, 9, 991 31 of 31

188. Jahn, T. Wissenschaft für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung braucht eine kritische Orientierung. GAIA 2013, 22,29–33. [CrossRef]

189. ISOE. 25 Jahre ISOE: Tagung: Lost in the Anthropocene?–Nachhaltige Wissenschaft in der Epoche derMenschheit. Available online: http://www.isoe.de/wissenskommunikation/aktuelles/news-single/25-jahre-isoe-tagung-lost-in-the-anthropocene-nachhaltige-wissenschaft-in-der-epoche-der-me/ (accessedon 28 February 2017).

190. Jantsch, E. Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation.In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities; Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A.,Michaud, G., Eds.; University of Nice: Nice, France, 1972; pp. 97–121.

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).